STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability is a doctrine that makes a person liable for the harm caused to the other party, even if he had taken due care and had no intention to cause harm. The concept of strict liability evolved from the landmark case Raylands v. Fletcher (1868). The concept of strict liability is also known as "no-fault liability", which means liability is held even if there is no fault on the part of the defendant.
Rayland v. Fletcher involved a mill owner named Rylands who hired a contractor to build a reservoir on his land. During construction, the contractor discovered old shafts that were connected to a coal mine owned by Thomas Fletcher. When the reservoir was filled, one of the shafts burst and flooded Fletcher's coal mine. Fletcher sued Rylands for damages. The court held that building such a reservoir was at the risk of the defendants, and in the course of it, if any mishap occurred, the defendants would be liable for such an escape of materials.
Features of Strict Liability:
-
No need to prove negligence or intent.
-
The focus is on causation and harm, not behaviour.
-
Common in tort law, especially in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products
the three requirements for application of rule
in Rylands v. Fletcher,
1. Something dangerous must be brought, collected and kept on the land.
2. It must be a non-natural use of land.
3. The thing must escape.
1. DANGEROUS THING
A thing which is of such nature that it has the tendency to escape and, when it escapes, to cause considerable damage. e.g., gases, liquids, animals.
2. NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND
Use of the land must be other than its ordinary use, i.e., the purpose for which it is
meant or the purpose for which it is suitable.
Illustrations of natural use of land can be: storage of water in a reservoir for a mill or
use, storage of one or two gas cylinders for domestic use, electricity connection to
light the house, lighting an oil lamp in the house, etc.
In Sochacki v. Sas, B, who was a lodger in A’s house, lit a fire in his room and
went out. While he was out, his room caught fire, maybe due to jumping on a spark.
It spread and damaged A’s property in the rest of the house. There was no evidence
of negligence on the part of B. It was held that B was not liable under Rylands v.
Fletcher since his use of the fire in his grate was an ordinary, natural, proper,
everyday use of a fireplace in a room.
In T. C. Balkrishna Menon v. T.R. Subramanian, the Court held that the use of
explosives in an open field on the occasion of a festival is a ‘non-natural’ use of land.
In State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators, due to overflow of water from a canal,
damage was done to the plaintiff's property. The Supreme Court held that use of land for
construction of a canal system is a normal use and thus not a non-natural use of land.
In Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya Sastry, A was the owner of a sugar factory.
B owned land adjacent to A’s sugar factory. A stored quantity of molasses escaped to B’s land and damaged his crop. B sued A. Collecting molasses in large
quantities was held by the court to be a non-natural use of land, and if a person
collected such things on his land and escaped to neighbours' land, he was liable.
3. ESCAPE
The defendant would be liable only when there is an escape of the object from the land of
which he is in occupation or control. The appellant was employed as an inspector of
ammunition. He was injured by the explosion of a shell while she was on the respondent's premises in the performance of her duties. Further, there was no proof
of negligence on the part of the defendant. The Court held that the injury was caused
on the premises of the defendants, i.e., not outside; thus, there was no escape. Therefore, the
respondents were not liable
Comments
Post a Comment