Criteria Strict Liability Absolute Liability
Definition Imposes legal responsibility for Imposes legal responsibility for
damages, regardless of fault or damages, regardless of fault or
negligence, but with some negligence, with no exceptions.
exceptions.
Fault No need to prove fault or No need to prove fault or
Requirement negligence. negligence.
Scope of Applies to inherently Applies to highly hazardous
Liability dangerous activities or activities or substances that can
products. cause significant harm.
Burden of The claimant must prove that The claimant must prove that the
Proof the harm was caused by the harm was caused by the
defendant’s actions or product. defendant’s actions or product.
Defenses Defenses may include Defenses are generally not
contributory negligence, available, except in rare
assumption of risk, or circumstances.
third-party intervention.
Exceptions Liability can be mitigated or No exceptions—the defendant is
eliminated by certain defenses. liable under all circumstances.
Application Used in product liability, Used for activities involving
hazardous activities (e.g., ultra-hazardous substances,
keeping dangerous animals), such as handling hazardous
and statutory offenses. chemicals or explosives.
Legal The liable party must The liable party must
Consequenc compensate for damages. compensate for damages.
es
Examples Defective product liability, Liability for transporting
liability for keeping dangerous hazardous materials, storing
animals. explosives.
The Doctrine of Strict Liability
Origin and Meaning
The principle of strict liability was established in the landmark English case of
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). Initially referred to as "absolute liability" by Justice
Blackburn, the term was later corrected to "strict liability" by legal scholar
Winfield, as the rule contained several exceptions.
Case Summary: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
● Facts of the Case:
○ Rylands, a mill owner, built a reservoir on his land.
○ Unknown to him, abandoned mine shafts beneath the reservoir
connected to Fletcher’s coal mines.
○ The water escaped, flooding Fletcher’s mines, causing damage.
○ Fletcher sued Rylands, even though Rylands was not negligent.
● Legal Principle Established:
○ Justice Blackburn’s Rule:
“The person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it at his peril. If he fails to do so, he is prima facie
answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape.”
○ The House of Lords upheld this rule but introduced key
qualifications:
■ The use of land must be "non-natural" (an unusual or artificial
use).
■ The dangerous thing must have been brought onto the land
by human agency (not naturally occurring).
Significance of Rylands v. Fletcher
● Established the foundation of strict liability, where liability exists without
proving negligence.
● Applied to dangerous substances, reservoirs, hazardous activities, and
industrial settings.
● Recognized exceptions, distinguishing it from absolute liability (which
allows no exceptions).
Definition and Principles of Strict Liability
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a person or entity responsible for damages
or injuries caused by their actions or products, regardless of intent or negligence.
Under this principle, liability is imposed based on the consequences of an act rather
than the defendant’s fault or intent. It applies to activities or products that are
inherently dangerous and pose a risk to others, ensuring that those who engage in
such activities bear the responsibility for any harm caused.
Key Elements of Strict Liability
The essential elements of strict liability include:
1. Activity or Product – Strict liability applies to specific activities or products
that are considered inherently dangerous or risky.
2. Causation – The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s activity or product
directly caused the harm or damage suffered.
3. No Fault Requirement – The plaintiff does not need to prove negligence
or intent on the part of the defendant. Liability exists solely based on the
activity or product involved.
4. Defenses – Certain defenses may be available, such as:
○ Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the harm.
○ Unforeseeable circumstances or third-party intervention played a
role.
Examples and Application of Strict Liability
Strict liability is commonly applied in cases involving:
● Dangerous animals – If someone owns a wild animal that injures another
person, the owner may be held strictly liable, regardless of precautions taken.
● Hazardous activities – Engaging in blasting operations, storing
explosives, or using toxic chemicals can lead to strict liability in case of
accidents.
● Defective products – Manufacturers can be held strictly liable for harm
caused by defective goods, even if they exercised reasonable care in
production.
Defenses to Strict Liability
Although strict liability imposes responsibility without proof of negligence, it is not
absolute. Several exceptions exist where the defendant may escape liability:
1. Default of the Plaintiff
● If the escape occurred due to the plaintiff’s own fault, the defendant is not
liable.
● Example: If a person carelessly tampers with a stored chemical and causes it
to spill, the owner cannot be held liable.
2. Consent of the Plaintiff (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
● If the plaintiff voluntarily consented to the presence of the dangerous thing,
the defendant is not liable.
● Example: In sports events, spectators assume the risk of accidental injuries
from the game.
3. Common Benefit
● If the dangerous thing was maintained for the mutual benefit of both
parties, strict liability does not apply.
● Case: Carstairs v. Tylor
○ A shared water box in a building leaked and caused damage.
○ Since both the plaintiff and defendant benefited from the water
supply, no liability was imposed.
4. Act of a Stranger
● If the harm was caused by a third party, beyond the defendant’s control, the
defendant is not liable.
● Example: If vandals break a dam and cause flooding, the owner of the dam
is not responsible.
5. Act of God
● Unpredictable and uncontrollable natural events that make prevention
practically impossible exempt the defendant from liability.
● Case: Nichols v. Marsland (1876)
○ Unprecedented rainfall caused artificial lakes to overflow, damaging
bridges.
○ The court ruled that such extraordinary weather events were an Act
of God, absolving the defendant of liability.
6. Statutory Authority
● If the defendant is legally required to maintain the dangerous thing, liability
arises only if negligence is proven.
● Case: Madras Railway Company v. Zamindar of Carvatenagram (1874)
○ The court distinguished between:
■ Public irrigation tanks (part of a national system, not liable).
■ Private reservoirs (liable under Rylands v. Fletcher)
Overview of Absolute Liability
Absolute Liability: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Background
● The Supreme Court of India introduced the doctrine of absolute liability in
the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) case, also known as the Shriram
Gas Leak Case.
● On December 4 and 6, 1985, Oleum gas leaked from a fertilizer plant in
Delhi, causing severe health hazards.
Key Departure from Rylands v. Fletcher
● The court rejected the applicability of strict liability, as formulated in
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868).
● Justice P.N. Bhagwati stated that the 19th-century rule was outdated in
light of rapid industrial advancements:
"This rule evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments
of science and technology had not taken place. It cannot afford any guidance
in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms
and needs of the present-day economy and social structure."
Principle of Absolute Liability
The court established a new, stricter standard known as absolute liability, which
states:
1. Hazardous enterprises have an absolute and non-delegable duty to the
community.
2. No exceptions or defenses (unlike strict liability).
3. If harm occurs due to an inherently dangerous industry, the enterprise is
fully liable—even if it took all reasonable precautions.
"An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry
that poses a potential threat to health and safety owes an absolute and
non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from
its activities."
Definition and Principles
Absolute liability is a legal doctrine that holds a person or entity strictly
responsible for harm or damage caused by their actions, irrespective of fault,
negligence, or due diligence. Unlike strict liability, absolute liability does not allow
for any exceptions or defenses in most cases. This doctrine is typically applied in
situations involving highly hazardous substances or activities that pose a
significant risk to public safety or the environment.
Key Elements of Absolute Liability
1. Activity or Substance – Applies to hazardous activities or substances that
have a high potential for harm (e.g., toxic chemicals, explosives, nuclear
materials).
2. No Fault Requirement – The defendant’s intent, negligence, or
precautions are irrelevant—they are liable solely based on the dangerous
nature of the activity or substance.
3. Public Interest – This doctrine is designed to protect public health, safety,
and the environment by ensuring that those engaging in dangerous activities
bear full responsibility.
4. Defenses – Very limited or no defenses are available. In some cases, acts
of God (natural disasters) or unforeseeable events may be considered as
exceptions, but these are rare.
Examples and Application of Absolute Liability
Absolute liability is applied in cases involving exceptionally dangerous activities,
such as:
● Industrial accidents involving hazardous substances – Example: The
Oleum Gas Leak case (MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987), where the
Supreme Court of India imposed absolute liability on industries dealing with
hazardous chemicals.
● Nuclear incidents – Operators of nuclear power plants can be held
absolutely liable for any harm caused by radiation leaks, regardless of fault.
● Toxic waste disposal – Companies handling toxic or hazardous waste may
be held liable for environmental damage, even if all regulations were followed.
This doctrine ensures that industries engaged in high-risk operations bear full
responsibility for any harm caused, encouraging them to take the highest level of
precaution to prevent disasters.
