Introduction 

• The law of torts primarily deals with civil wrongs where one party's actions cause harm or injury to another.  
• While many torts require proof of negligence, certain situations warrant a stricter approach to liability.  
• The doctrines of strict liability and absolute liability emerged to address scenarios where particularly dangerous activities pose extraordinary risks to society.  
• These concepts represent a significant departure from fault-based liability, creating responsibility regardless of intent or negligence. 

The Doctrine of Strict Liability 

Origin and Meaning 

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 

• The concept of strict liability originated in the landmark English case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868).  
• Though Justice Blackburn initially termed it "absolute liability," legal scholar Winfield later corrected this characterization to "strict liability," as the rule actually contained several exceptions. 
• The case involved a mill owner (Rylands) who constructed a reservoir on his land.  
• When water from this reservoir escaped through old mine shafts and flooded Fletcher's coal mines, the court established a novel principle of liability that did not require proof of negligence. 
• Justice Blackburn articulated the rule:  
  • The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape." 
• The House of Lords confirmed this rule with important qualifications, specifically that the use of land should be "non-natural" and that the thing must have been brought onto the land by human agency rather than occurring naturally. 

Essential Elements of Strict Liability 

• Two fundamental requirements must be satisfied to establish strict liability under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule: 
  • Escape from one land to another: The dangerous substance must actually escape from the defendant's property to the plaintiff's property or to an area outside the defendant's control. 
  • Non-natural use of land: The defendant must be using the land in a manner considered "non-natural" or unusual, bringing special dangers to others that exceed ordinary use. 

The Element of Escape 

• The Bhopal Gas Tragedy exemplifies the escape element.  
• On December 2-3, 1984, methyl isocyanate leaked from Union Carbide's plant, spreading beyond company property and causing thousands of deaths and lasting injuries to residents in surrounding areas. 
• Contrast this with the case of N. Narayanan Bhattathiripad v. Travancore Government (1956), where a dam constructed for irrigation caused flooding of nearby paddy fields after heavy rainfall.  
  • The court ruled this did not constitute an "escape" as understood in strict liability, as the water had not been stored up in or collected in the dam itself. 

Non-Natural Use of Land 

• The concept of "non-natural" use does not simply mean artificial or man-made.  
• Rather, courts have interpreted it to mean unusual activities that bring increased danger to others.  
• As defined in Rickards v. Lothian (1913): "It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community." 
• Examples of non-natural uses established by courts include: 
  • Industrial water under pressure 
  • Gas and electricity in bulk 
  • Explosives 
  • Noxious fumes 
  • Strong vibrations 
  • Poisonous vegetation 
  • Colliery operations 
• The determination of what constitutes "non-natural" use varies by location, context, and cultural norms.  
• For instance, in Kana Ram Akhul v. Satidhar Chatterjee (1912), lowering land to get water from a nearby tank for cultivation was deemed a natural use in the Indian agricultural context. 

Liability Despite Independent Contractors 

• An important aspect of strict liability is that a principal cannot escape responsibility by delegating dangerous activities to independent contractors.  
• In both Rylands v. Fletcher and T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian (1968), defendants were held liable for damages caused by dangerous substances or objects despite having hired independent contractors to manage the activities. 

Defences to Strict Liability 

• Despite being termed "strict," this form of liability is not absolute in the true sense, as several defences or exceptions exist: 
  • Default of the plaintiff: If the escape occurred due to the plaintiff's own fault, the defendant is not liable. 
  • Consent of the plaintiff: Express or implied consent to the defendant keeping the dangerous thing eliminates liability under the principle of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk). 
  • Common Benefit: If the dangerous thing was maintained for the mutual benefit of plaintiff and defendant, as in Carstairs v. Tylor (where a shared water box leaked), strict liability does not apply. 
  • Act of stranger: If a third party beyond the defendant's control causes the escape, the defendant is not liable. 
  • Act of God: Extraordinary and unforeseeable natural events that make prevention practically impossible provide a valid defense, as in Nichols v. Marsland (1876), where unprecedented rainfall caused lakes to overflow and destroy bridges. 
  • Statutory Authority: If the defendant is legally required to maintain the dangerous thing, they are not liable for escape without proof of negligence.  
    • The Madras Railway Company v. Zamindar of Carvatenagram (1874) case illustrates this defense, where ancient irrigation tanks maintained as part of a "national system" were distinguished from the purely private reservoir in Rylands v. Fletcher. 

Absolute Liability 

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987):  

• The Supreme Court of India made a groundbreaking departure from the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), commonly known as the Shriram case.  
• Following the escape of Oleum gas from a fertilizer factory in Delhi on December 4 and 6, 1985, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate standard of liability for hazardous industries. 
• Chief Justice Bhagwati recognized that the rule developed in 1868 was insufficient for modern industrial realities: 
  • "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." 
• The court established a new principle of "absolute liability" that was notably more stringent than strict liability: 
  • "An enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken." 

Comparison Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Application in Environmental Cases 

• The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) further solidified the absolute liability doctrine in Indian jurisprudence.  
• In this case, chemical industries had released toxic sludge and untreated waste water that contaminated soil and water, causing severe environmental damage and harming nearby communities. 
• The Supreme Court applied the principle of absolute liability alongside the "polluter pays" principle, directing the government to recover remediation costs by attaching the assets of what it termed "rogue industries." 
• The court ordered these enterprises to be closed and bear the full cost of environmental restoration. 

Conclusion 

The evolution from strict liability to absolute liability represents a significant progression in tort law's response to industrialization and its accompanying hazards. While strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher marked an important departure from fault-based liability in the 19th century, it contained exceptions that limited its effectiveness in addressing modern industrial risks. 

India's innovative absolute liability doctrine represents a more comprehensive approach to protecting citizens and the environment in an increasingly complex technological landscape. By eliminating exceptions and focusing on the inherent responsibility of enterprises that profit from dangerous activities, this doctrine places human safety and environmental protection at the forefront of legal consideration.