Definition of Strict Liability:
Generally we made the person liable for its own fault but in Strict liability a party could be responsible for their actions, regardless of intent or fault. It typically applies to those conduct that are inherently dangerous, for example - manufacturing of hazardous materials and owning dangerous animals.
The crucial part in strict liability is that mere occurrence of the injury is sufficient. There is no need to prove negligence of defendant.
Essentials of Strict Liability:
1. Dangerous Substances:
A person will be held strictly liable only for using “dangerous” substances. This liability arise when the defendant doing activities which are inherently dangerous or involve a high risk of harm.
Example - Storing and transporting explosive materials, engaging in ultrahazardous activities, keeping wild animals, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be comes under dangerous things.
For imposing the strict liability, it is important to have a dangerous substance. Any substance which will cause harm when it is escape considered as dangerous substance.
2. Escape:
This is a second necessary condition for make the person liable under this liability. The defendant will be liable if the material escaped from the premises. After escape it should not be within the reach of the defendant.
For Example - the defendant has a poisonous plant at his property. The leaves of the plant escape from the property. Hanging leaves eaten by plaintiff's cattle, as a result the cattle die. The defendant will be held strictly liable for the compensation.
In other condition - if the cattle enters into the premises of defendant and then eats the poisonous leaves. The defendant would not be liable. In the judgement of Reads v. Lyons & Co. it was held that if there is no escape, the strict liability will not arise.
3. Unnatural Use of the Land:
To go with strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land. In the very landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water reservoir was deemed to be as unnatural use of the land. The term “non-natural” is to be used, where some special use of land that increases the danger to others.
Storage of water for domestic use is considered as natural use whereas storing water for the intention of energizing a mill was deemed to un-natural use of land.
Whenever these three condition are satisfied concurrently to constitute a strict liability.
Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:
In strict liability defendant is liable even there is no fault. Even then here are several defences available which you can use to defend yourself. The rule of strict liability was laid down in the famous case Rylands v. Fletcher. Three circumstances are required to made a person liable under this - Dangerous substance when escaped from the premise of the defendant and caused damage due to that escape.
Exceptions:-
- Act done by Independent contractor
- Act done by third party
- Act of God.
- Statutory Authority.
1. Act done by Independent contractor
The act which is done by an independent contract will not fall under the category of strict liability. This is an exception of liability. When any person hire a contractor to do any work and there is some flaws in that work. Then, this will not considered in strict liability.
2. Act done by third party
If there is a involvement of third party in the incident hence damage caused. Then defendant can take this defences for not liable under strict liability. For example, DJ party running in A's house by this party neighbour tenant got disturbed and file a suit against his landlord. Here, the suit will not sustain because the act is not related to owner this is a third party wrongful act.
3. Act of God
If the harm is caused by an act of God which is unforeseeable, sudden, direct and irresistible act of nature, then the defendant can be except from the liability. The damage will cause regardless of how many precautions a person take. Tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, heavy or extraordinary rainfall are the some examples of act of God.
4. Plaintiff’s own fault
In such cases when plaintiff also contribute in the incident the he suffers the damage. Here, plaintiff can not shift liability on another person nevertheless of how much damage he suffers.
Case Laws Related to Strict Liability:
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868):
This is an important judgment in law of tort by which the strict liability has been developed. The concept of strict liability has been derived in this case. Facts - the defendants made a reservoir on their land because of some leakage in the reservoir. It was burst and flooding a neighboring coal mine.
The court held strictly liable for the compensation to the plaintiff. The court said that anyone who bring onto their land anything likely to do mischief and if it escapes are strictly liable for the consequences.
Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991):
The court observe the liability related with selling a house that was allegedly haunted. The court stated that the seller will be held liable, because he failed to disclose the haunting. He was strictly liable as the haunting was considered a condition.
McDonald's Coffee Case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 1994):
It is an often cited case in tort which involves strict liability principles. A 79-year-old customer Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's for suffering damage after getting severe burns from hot coffee. The court held that McDonald's has strictly liable due to the excessively high temperature of the coffee.
Rule of Absolute Liability
The Supreme Court of India established an other version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987). In this case, there is a company called Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries in which the harmful Oleum gas had escaped from the factory. The gas had caused a lot of damage to peoples nearby.
The Supreme Court held that, despite all these facts, the strict liability rule was inadequate in this modern era. This is because modern industries and chemicals are more dangerous and hazardous. Hence, in the result court laid down rule of absolute liability.
There is a deference between in absolute and strict liability because in absolute liability "no exception" will apply. Accordingly, the plaintiff who suffered damage will have unlimited liability to compensate. In India, this rule applied in many cases to create deterrence.
Conclusion:
Generally, people will be held liable for their own conduct but this liability is the exception of fault based liabilities. In this person is held liable even there is no fault by him. This principle also called as "no fault liability". There are several exception also present in strict liability which we have discussed above.
0 Comments