STRICT LIABILITY Shristi Khandelwal BASICS OF LAW Mon, Nov 02, 2020, at ,05:00 PM MEANING Strict liability is an extremely important concept under the law of torts along with absolute liability. The base of this principle lies in the inherent harm in some dangerous activities can inflict. In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. For example, leaking of poisonous gas, intrusion on another’s land by livestock, ownership of wild animals and product liabilities. The basic principle of compensation in torts generally depends on the extent of precaution taken by a person. And if abundant precautions are taken to prevent the foreseeable harm, the person may be exempted from paying damages. But, under strict liability, the tort law makes people pay compensation of damages if they are not at fault and took necessary precautions. ESSENTIALS Dangerous thing: The defendant will be liable for strict liability only if ‘dangerous substance’ escapes from his premises, i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage to other people in person or their property on its escape. For this purpose, a dangerous substance can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things. Escape: The thing that causes damage must ‘escape’ from the premises under the control of the defendant. For instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter the property of the plaintiff and are eaten by his cattle, which as a result die. The defendant will be liable for the loss. In the case of Read vs. Lyons and Co, it was held that if there is no escape, the defendant cannot be held liable. Non-natural use of land: To make non-natural use of land basically means using the land for things which are not usual. Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is found to grow trees of poisonous nature on his land, and then it is non-natural use of the land. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY Plaintiff’s fault- If the plaintiff is himself in fault and any damage is caused, no liability stands on the defendant, as the plaintiff knowingly came in contact with the dangerous thing. In the case of Ponting v. Noakes, the plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such loss. Act of God- It is the act which is beyond the agency and control of human powers. For the acts of God (Vis Major), no liability lies on the defendant. For example, excessive rain destroyed a farmer’s crops and the farmer blames the landlord for the same. Herein, the landlord will not be liable in any case. Act of Stranger- The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a third party. But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible. Consent of Plaintiff- This exception mainly relies on the maxim- ‘Volenti non-fit injuria’. When the plaintiff has either expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of a source of danger and also there has been no negligence on the defendant’s part, the defendant will not be held liable. Statutory Authority- If any act done under the authorization of the law/statute like the government of a country or a state government causes any damage to a person, it acts as a defence to an action for tort. For instance, administration done by a police constable lies in the statutory authority and he cannot be held liable strictly. RYLANDS v. FLETCHER The principle of strict liability is evolved in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. This was an English case, which gave birth to the rule of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. Facts: Plaintiff owned and operated a mine adjacent to which Defendant constructed an artificial pond. The latter caused a mine shaft collapse, which resulted in a flood, and damaged Plaintiff’s operation. The plaintiff sued, the matter was brought before an arbitrator to independently establish facts. The trial court found for the Plaintiff; the appellate court affirmed; Defendant appealed to the House of Lords, which also affirmed. Judgement: Lord Cairns ruled that the principle applied only to a "non-natural" use of the defendant's land, as distinguished from "any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land be used." Strict liability exists for harm resulting from the miscarriage of lawful activity that, considering its place and manner, is unusual, extraordinary, or inappropriate. As a result, water collected in household pipes or a stock watering tank or a cistern is a natural use, but water collected in large tanks in dangerous proximity to the plaintiff's land is not. CONCLUSION The principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and cause any damage. Relying on the principle held in Rylands v. Fletcher, the person from whose property such dangerous substance escaped will be held accountable even when he was not negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous.