Strict liability is a legal concept in tort law that holds a person or entity liable for certain actions or activities, regardless of fault or intent. Unlike traditional negligence-based liability, strict liability does not require proof of negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongdoing. Instead, the focus is on the inherently dangerous nature of the activity or product. Strict liability has five exceptions. While absolute liability is a strict liability without exceptions.

Essential Ingredients of Strict Liability:

The essential ingredients of strict liability are as follows:

• There should be dangerous thing.
• There should be escape of dangerous thing.
• There should be some damage out of this escape
• There should be a non-natural use of the land or property.

Escape of Dangerous Things:

The “escape of dangerous thing” concept is often associated with the legal doctrine of strict liability in tort law. It typically refers to situations where a person is held strictly liable for the harm caused by a dangerous substance or object that escapes from their control. This principle is closely related to the broader category of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. In cases involving the escape of a dangerous thing, the key elements are:

• Dangerous thing: There must be a substance or object that is inherently dangerous or poses a high risk of harm if it escapes. This could include things like toxic chemicals, hazardous materials, or other potentially harmful substances. Dangerous things also includes fire, fire arms, fireworks, explosive materials, poisonous drugs, gas, machinery etc.
• Escape: The dangerous thing must escape from the control of the person responsible for it. This could involve a spill, leak, explosion, or any other event that allows the dangerous substance or object to move beyond its intended confinement.

Common examples of situations where the escape of a dangerous thing might lead to strict liability include:

• Chemical Spills from Industrial Facilities: If a company is storing or using hazardous chemicals and there is a spill that causes harm, the company may be held strictly liable. Example: In Bhopal, thousands of people died due to licking of Methyl Isocyanide (MIC) gas from Union Carbide Plant.
• Fire: A man is not liable for damaged caused by a domestic fire. Every person who lights a fire for non-domestic purpose have a heavy responsibility to his neighbours as regards the lighting, safe-keeping, and spreading of such fire.
• Fire Arms: Loaded fire arms are regarded as highly dangerous things, even if they have taken apparently sufficient precaution.
• Fireworks and Explosive Materials: Fireworks and explosive materials are very dangerous and destructive.
• Escape of a Dangerous Animal: If someone is keeping a wild or inherently dangerous animal, and it escapes and causes harm, the owner may be strictly liable. Dangerous animals include lion, tiger, crocodile, ferocious dog, etc.
• Gas: All persons dealing with gas are bound to exercise the greatest care for they are using material difficult to manage, and has dangerous character. Example: Oleum Gas case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India).

In T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian, AIR 1968 Ker 151 case, the Court held that the use of explosives in an open ground on a festival day was non-natural use of land. The reason was that under the Explosives Act, for making and storing explosive substances even on such places and at such occasions, licenses have to be obtained.

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.K. 330 (The water Reservoir case):

Strict liability is a legal concept in tort law that holds a person or entity liable for certain actions or activities, regardless of fault or intent. Fletcher was working in a coal mine under a lease. On the neighbouring land, Rylands desired to erect a reservoir for storing water, and for this purpose, he employed a competent independent contractor whose workmen, while excavating the soil, discovered some disused shafts and passages communicating with old workings and the mine in the adjoining land. The shafts and passages had been filled with loose earth and rubbish. The contractor did not take the trouble to pack these shafts and passages with earth, so as to bear pressure of water in the reservoir, when it is filled. Shortly after the construction of the reservoir, whilst it was partly filled with water, the vertical shafts gave way and burst downwards. The consequence was that the water flooded the old passages and also the plaintiff’s mine, so that the mine could not be worked. The plaintiff sued for damages. No negligence on the part of the defendant was proved.

The only question was whether the defendant would be liable for the negligence of the independent contractor who was admittedly a competent engineer. The Court held that the question of negligence was quite immaterial. The defendant, in bringing water into the reservoir, was bound to keep it there at his peril. Lord Cairns, delivering the judgment in the House of Lords in 1868, held that the defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by the escape of water, even though they were not negligent. The key elements established in the case are:

The strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is based on following conditions:

• Accumulation of something on land: There must be an accumulation of something on the defendant’s land, whether it be water, chemicals, or any other substance.
• Non-natural use of the land: The use of the land must be non-natural and involve a special risk to others. In the case, the construction of a reservoir for industrial purposes was considered a non-natural use.
• Escape: There must be an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant’s land, and this escape must cause harm to the plaintiff.

The Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine has been influential in shaping the law of strict liability for hazardous activities or conditions in various jurisdictions.

Scienter Rule:

The word “scienter” is Latin for “knowingly” or “having knowledge.” The scienter rule holds an owner liable for harm caused by their domestic animals if the owner knew or had reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensities. In other words, if an owner is aware that their animal has a tendency to act in a way that could cause harm, they may be held strictly liable for any harm caused by the animal, even if they were not negligent in controlling the animal at the time of the incident.

The scienter rule is often applied in cases involving injuries caused by dogs or other domestic animals. For example, if an owner is aware that their dog has a history of aggressive behaviour and the dog bites someone, the owner may be held strictly liable for the injuries under the scienter rule.

Exceptions to Rule of Rylands v. Fletcher:

While Rylands v. Fletcher established the principle of strict liability for harm caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s land, there are certain exceptions and limitations to this rule. Some common exceptions and limitations to the Rylands v. Fletcher rule include:

Act of God (Vis Major):

If the escape of the dangerous thing is the result of an unforeseeable and uncontrollable natural event, often referred to as an “act of God,” the defendant may not be held strictly liable. The key is that the escape must be due to circumstances beyond human control. These events include earthquake, cyclone, tsunami, etc.

In Nicholas v. Marsland, (1875) L.R. ex. 225 case, the defendant, Marsland, constructed a dam on his land to create ornamental lakes. The dams were properly constructed and safe for all ordinary occasion. The reservoir was designed to hold a vast amount of water. However, during an unusually heavy rainfall and storm, the embankment of the reservoir collapsed, leading to the escape of a large volume of water. The rushing water caused considerable damage downstream, including the destruction of a bridge owned by the plaintiff, Nicholas. The court held that Marsland was not strictly liable for the damages caused by the escape of water because, Marsland had taken reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of the reservoir, and the collapse was an unforeseeable result of an extraordinary natural event (the heavy rainfall).

In Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 12 SCC 1 case, the Supreme Court of India relied upon a similar definition of act of God. It stated that: “An act of God is that which is a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of ability, have been foreseen, or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill have been resisted. Generally, those acts which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature, unconnected with the agency of man or other cause will come under the category of act of God.”

Act of a Stranger:

If a third party or a stranger’s deliberate act causes the escape of the dangerous thing, the person who originally brought the substance onto the land may not be held strictly liable. If, however the act of the stranger is or can be foreseen by the defendant and the damage can be prevented, the defendant must, by due care, prevent the damage. Failure on his part to avoid such damage will make him liable.

In Box v. Jubb, (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76 case, the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was held not liable for that.

In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 551 case, the rule of strict liability was applied and the defect of the dangerous thing being an ‘act of the stranger’ was not allowed because the same could have been foreseen. Thus, the authorities manning such dangerous commodities have an extra duty of care to prevent damage.

Default of Plaintiff:

If the harm is a result of the plaintiff’s own default or misconduct, the defendant may not be held strictly liable. The plaintiff’s actions must be a significant contributing factor to the harm suffered.

In Ponting v. Noakes, (1849) 2 Q.B. 281 case, the plaintiffs horse intruded into the defendant’s land and died after having nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree there. The defendant was held not liable because damage would not have occurred but for the horse’s own intrusion to the defendant’s land.

Statutory Authority:

If the defendant’s use of the land is authorized by law or a valid statute, it may provide a defence against strict liability. If the activity is conducted in compliance with legal requirements, the defendant may argue that they should not be held strictly liable.

In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894) 70 L.T. 547 case, the defendants operated a waterworks company and were engaged in supplying water to the inhabitants of Chelsea. The company had constructed a reservoir and employed independent contractors to construct a new filter bed. The contractors, in the course of their work, dug a well that eventually reached a layer of sand, causing water to flow into it. The water, which contained impurities, flowed into the plaintiff’s well and contaminated the plaintiff’s water supply. The Court held that bursting of such water supplies was without any defendant’s fault and statutory protection would be granted.

Consent of the Plaintiff:

If the plaintiff has given their consent to the defendant’s use of the land or to the activity causing the harm, it may serve as a defence against strict liability. However, the consent must be informed and voluntary.

In Carstairs v. Taylor, (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 217 case, the plaintiff rented the ground floor of the building owned by the defendant. The upper floor was occupied by the defendant himself. On the defendant’s floor, large quantity of water was stored. The water seeped down and destroyed the goods stored by the plaintiff. However, since the water was stored for the benefit of both the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant was not held liable under the rule of strict liability.

Rule of Absolute Liability:

In M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086 case, the Supreme Court evolved the rule of ‘absolute liability’ as part of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict liability. It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under Rylands rule. For instance when the escape of the substance causing damage is due to the act of a stranger, say due to sabotage, there is no liability under the Rylands rule. The court observed: “This rule (Ryland v Fletcher) evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place….we have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy.”

In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 548 case, the doctrine of absolute liability was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide (MIC) poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. The effects were so grave that children in those areas are born with deformities even today. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U.S. based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the victims. The Court applying the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the victims.

In Gittam Ram v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2013 J&K 83 case, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir discussed the liability of an enterprise generating, transmitting, supplying or using electricity of high voltage. It was held that such a person or company has to endure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that such electric current will not escape. The basis of such liability is a foreseeable risk and the inherent danger of the very activity.

Thus the exceptions discussed above are not applicable in India.

Difference between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

Strict Liability	Absolute Liability
The principle of strict liability makes the defendant strictly liable where he brings something on his land which constitutes as non-natural use of land and when that thing escapes the land, it causes injury to the plaintiff.	The principle of absolute liability makes the defendant absolutely liable where he carries on an activity that is hazardous and inherently dangerous.
The principle of strict liability was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher	The principle of absolute liability was laid down in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India
It is subject to certain exceptions like vis major, act of a third party, volenti non fit injuria etc.	It has no exceptions.

Conclusion:

Absolute and strict liability are two related but distinct concepts within the same body of law, the Law of Torts. Strict Liability is narrower than an absolute liability. Both systems of law are founded on no-fault liability. Still, strict liability has several exceptions, and if a case falls under one of those exceptions, the defendant is not held accountable for the act. Absolute liability is a situation in which the defendant must pay damages and is not permitted to raise defences. In India the doctrine of absolute liability is used.