Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
In tort law, both strict liability and absolute liability are exceptions to the general principle that fault must be proven to establish negligence. These doctrines aim to provide redress to victims of hazardous activities, even in the absence of intent or carelessness. While both impose liability without fault, they differ significantly in their scope and the availability of defenses. The evolution from strict liability, as established in the classic case of *Rylands v Fletcher* (1868), to absolute liability, as articulated in *M.C. Mehta v Union of India* (1987), reflects a growing concern for public safety and environmental protection in the context of rapidly industrializing nations like India.
Strict Liability
Strict liability, originating from the landmark English case *Rylands v Fletcher* (1868 LR 3 HL 330), holds a person liable for damages caused by a dangerous thing brought onto their land that escapes and causes harm. The principle states that if someone brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it breaks out, they are liable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, regardless of whether they took reasonable care.
- Essential Conditions:
- Dangerous thing
- Brought by the defendant onto their land
- Escape of the dangerous thing
- Non-natural use of land
- Resulting damage
- Defenses Available: Several defenses can be pleaded under strict liability:
- Act of God: An extraordinary natural event that could not be foreseen.
- Default of the Plaintiff: Damage caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.
- Force Majeure: An irresistible force or unforeseen event.
- Statutory Authority: If the activity is authorized by a statute.
Absolute Liability
Absolute liability, a stricter standard, was developed in India in the case of *M.C. Mehta v Union of India* (1987 AIR 969, SCR (2) 798). This principle arose from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984), which exposed the limitations of strict liability in dealing with hazardous industries. The Supreme Court held that when an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, it has an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure that the activity is conducted with utmost care and safety, and it must be absolutely liable for any harm resulting from the activity, regardless of whether reasonable care was taken.
- Essential Conditions:
- Hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
- Harm resulting from the activity
- No Defenses Available: Crucially, unlike strict liability, no defenses are available under absolute liability. The enterprise is liable even if it took all reasonable care and there was no negligence. The only exception is if the harm was caused by a third party, over whom the enterprise had no control.
Comparison: Strict Liability vs. Absolute Liability
The following table summarizes the key differences between the two principles:
| Feature | Strict Liability | Absolute Liability |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Rylands v Fletcher (1868) | M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) |
| Standard of Care | Reasonable care is relevant; liability arises from the escape of a dangerous thing. | Highest degree of care required; liability arises from the inherently dangerous nature of the activity. |
| Defenses | Act of God, Plaintiff’s Default, Force Majeure, Statutory Authority | No defenses (except harm caused by a third party beyond control) |
| Scope | Applies to non-natural use of land. | Applies to hazardous and inherently dangerous industries. |
| Focus | Escape of a dangerous substance. | The inherent risk associated with the activity itself. |
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy highlighted that the defenses available under strict liability could be exploited by industries to evade responsibility. Absolute liability was thus introduced to ensure that industries engaged in hazardous activities bear the full cost of potential harm, incentivizing them to prioritize safety and prevent disasters.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both strict and absolute liability aim to provide compensation to victims of hazardous activities without proving fault, absolute liability represents a significant departure from the traditional common law principle. The Indian judiciary, recognizing the unique challenges posed by rapidly industrializing economies and the potential for large-scale disasters, adopted absolute liability to ensure greater accountability and public safety. This shift underscores the evolving nature of tort law in response to societal needs and environmental concerns.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.