Concept of Strict Liability in Torts
The concept of Strict Liability in torts is
also referred as “No-Fault Liability”, which can very explain this concept in
an obvious manner- “that liability would exist irrespective of any fault”.
There exist certain activities which are inherently so dangerous in nature that
merely carrying them on poses a duty on the person who does so, to compensate
for any damage irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The rationale
behind imposing such liability is the foreseeable risk involved in
such activities. This principle was first applied by the House of Lord in the
case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
The case of Rylands v. Fletcher
In the year 1868, it was laid down by Blackburn,
J.-
“The person who for his own purpose brings on his
land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes
must keep it at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural
consequences for its escape. He cannot escape himself by showing that the
escape was owing to the plaintiff’s fault, consequences or his major acts or
act of God.”
In order to arrive at this conclusion, it is
important to consider the facts of the case. Here defendant who was a mill
owner had appointed certain contractors (apparently with requisite skills) to
construct reservoirs in his land to provide water in the mill. During the work,
the contractors came across certain old shafts in defendant’s land. Such shafts
were connected with the plaintiff’s mine but such was not ascertainable as the
shafts appeared to be filled with the earth. As soon as the reservoirs where
filled, the shafts broke down and thereby flooded the mines of the plaintiff.
The court held that building such a reservoir was
at the risk of defendants and in course of it, if any mishap occurred,
defendants would be liable for such escape of materials.
Essentials
for Strict Liability in Torts
To prove a case of strict liability, the following
ingredients must be fulfilled-
A. Dangerous
thing
A person can be held “strictly liable” only in the
cases where a dangerous substance escapes from their land. A dangerous
substance is those which are likely to cause some harm or mischief if escape.
In Rylands’ case, such dangerous thing was a large body of water. In various
other torts cases vibrations, electricity, gas, sewage, explosives, rusty
wires, etc were considered to be dangerous things.
B. Escape
It is also essential that such dangerous thing must
escape from the premises of the defendant. In the case of Crowhurst v.
Amersham Burial Board where the branches of the poisonous tree were spread
from defendant’s land to plaintiffs, it was held that such was escaped. Whereas
in the case of Read v. Lyons & Co, where an employee suffered
an injury due to an explosion in a shell manufacturing company, it was held
such could not be covered under strict liability principle as nothing escaped
from the defendant’s premises.
C. Damage
There must be damage suffered by the plaintiff as a
direct consequence of the dangerous thing that escaped. In the case of Weller
v. Foot and Mouth Disease Institute, where the defendant went out of
business due to the Government’s action of closing cattle market, it was held
to be sufficient damage.
D. Non-Natural
use of land
In the case of Richard v. Lothian, Lord
Multon defined non-natural use of land as “some special use bringing with it
increased danger to others and not merely the ordinary use of the land or such
a use as it proper for the general benefit for the community”.
Such would be decided by the courts after
considering all the surrounding circumstances and the prevalent social
conditions. For example, in Ryland’s case, storing water in huge quantity was
considered to be non-natural use of land whereas if such would be stored for an
ordinary domestic purpose that would have been natural use of land.
Exceptions
to the Rule of Strict Liability in Torts
The concept of strict liability in torts has
certain exceptions that the defendant can plead to escape from the liability.
Following are the exceptions-
A. The default of the claimant
The cases where damage is suffered by the plaintiff
due to his own fault, the principle of strict liability would not be applied.
In the case of Ponting v. Noakes where the horse of the plaintiff died after
nibbling on leaves of the poisonous tree in the defendant’s land. It was held
that such was due to the plaintiff’s own fault as such a tree had not reached
the plaintiff’s land.
B. Act of God
The principle of strict liability in torts would
not be applicable to the cases where damage is caused due to act of God. Such
are those which are beyond human power or contemplation and are caused by a
superior natural force.
C. Consent of the claimant
This is basically a defense of ‘Volenti non fit
injuria’ where the plaintiff has either explicitly or impliedly consented for
the presence of such dangerous thing.
D. Statutory Authority
If a particular act is done under authorization of
a law or statute, for example, an act done by the government agencies, such an
act cannot be made strictly liable. In Green v. Chelsea waterworks co.,
where the defendant’s company was engaged to maintain a continuous water supply
under statutory authority, it was held that bursting of such water supplies was
without any defendant’s fault and statutory protection would be granted.
E. Act of the third party
A defendant can claim a defense from strict
liability in torts where damage is caused to the fault of a stranger or a third
party. Such an act is not in control of the defendant. In the case of Rickards
v. Lothian where some strangers blocked the water pipeline, which is
usually in control of the defendant. Such blockage resulted in an explosion
which eventually causes damage to the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant
can’t be made liable as it was due to the act of a third party which was not in
control of the defendant.
F. Common Benefit
Where the source of danger is maintained for the
common benefit of both plaintiff and defendant, strict liability in torts would
not be applicable. In the case of Box v. Jubb[10] where the
defendant’s reservoir got overflowed partly due to the plaintiff’s reservoir
and partly because of the defendant’s act. It was held defendant can’t be made
liable because such reservoirs were installed for the common benefit of both
the party.
Conclusion
The principle of strict liability in torts is often
criticized because of the existing exceptions which eventually help the
defendant to doze off the liability. But we should also consider the fact that
this principle is in itself an exception. A person can be made liable only when
he is at fault. But this principle allows us to make a person liable even
without any fault.
Post a Comment