A 'Different' Series #9: Strict Liability Vs Absolute Liability

Coverage of this Article

Difference Between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

-The defendant is liable under the strict liability concept if he introduces anything on his land that is a non-natural use of land and if that object flees the land and causes harm to the plaintiff.

Strict Liability case laws

-In Rylands V. Fletcher's [(1868) LR 3 HL 330], the defendant owned a mill that required the construction of a water reservoir.

Absolute Liability case laws

-In M.C Mehta V. Union of India(AIR 1987 SC 1086),a subsidiary company manufactured chlorine and caustic.

Conclusion

-In many cases, it is witnessed that a person is harmed due to the activities of another person who is acting within the limits of his rights.

Difference Between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

Strict Liability case laws

• In Rylands V. Fletcher's [(1868) LR 3 HL 330], the defendant owned a mill that required the construction of a water reservoir. He outsourced the work to an independent contractor. While constructing the reservoir, the contractors found old coal shafts and passages loaded with loose soil and trash linked to a nearby mine owned by Thomas Fletcher. The contractors decided to ignore the problem and continued with their work. Due to their carelessness, Fletcher's mine was destroyed twice because of the shafts. After the discovery of the sunken coal shafts, Fletcher sued Ryland. This was the case that marked the existence of the strict liability rule.
• In Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2016) 12 SCC 1], the respondents built and maintained a dam. The dam unleashed 60,000 cusecs of water, flooding the appellants' property and destroying their crops. The SC ruled that the defendant must pay damages since it was his responsibility to work to ensure that other occupants were as safe from injury as they would have been if nature had not been tampered with by the respondents.

Absolute Liability case laws

• In M.C Mehta V. Union of India(AIR 1987 SC 1086),a subsidiary company manufactured chlorine and caustic. A petroleum gas leak from one of the units resulted in the loss of many lives. This was a consequence of human and mechanical failures. The cause for this leakage was the bursting of the tank, which contained the oleum gas, due to the collapsing of the structure upon which it was built. The courts preceding's shed light on how the industry's highly hazardous and toxic substances must be dealt with, along with the importance of controlled and contained methods to reduce the hazards in industries to guard the workers and the general citizens. This landmark case laid out the rule of absolute liability.
• In Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 1446), the Supreme Court placed an absolute liability on a firm engaged in hazardous and intrinsically harmful to life activities. The writ petition in this matter was intended against the Central and State Governments and the State Pollution Control Board for failing to discharge their statutory duties.

Conclusion

In many cases, it is witnessed that a person is harmed due to the activities of another person who is acting within the limits of his rights. In such cases, it becomes challenging to hold someone responsible, and that's why the rules of strict and absolute liability were established. The strict liability and absolute liability principles apply where the defendant was not negligent, yet an accident happened due to something he brought into his property. Under the principles, a person who makes an unnatural use of his property or engages in a dangerous and fundamentally destructive activity is held to a higher duty of care. However, the rule of absolute responsibility is more stringent and offers no defense to a person or company engaged in a hazardous and intrinsically dangerous activity.