Liability without any fault: An Analysis of Strict and Absolute Liability Meghana Narayanan Law of Torts Fri, Jun 30, 2023, at ,08:39 PM IntroductionThe devastating mornings of fourth and sixth of December 1985 witnessed tragic gas leaks in a Delhi industrial unit. The tragic incident brought with it a landmark decision that revolutionized the application of the existing principles of law. The case involved the larger concept of "no fault liability," in which a liability develops without any fault. The concepts of strict and absolute liability fall under this general principle. The ideas of strict and absolute liability exist to hold people who engage in risky or harmful actions accountable, even when safety procedures are followed. This article's goal is to explore these two ideas and how they apply to the current legal landscape. Strict liabilityRylands v. Fletcher led to the development of the strict liability theory. In this case, Rylands built a reservoir on his land through an independent contractor. However, the contractors failed to notice old shafts under the reservoir that were no longer in use. As a result, when the reservoir was filled, water burst through shafts and flooded the neighbour's land. Fletcher, the neighbour, then filed a negligence claim against Rylands. This case established the rule of strict liability (Rylands v Fletcher 1868). The rule requires the presence of a harmful thing, escape, and a non-natural use of the property in order to establish strict liability. There are, however, some exclusions to the rule that can serve as barriers. These exclusions include acts of God, strangers, the plaintiff's assent, third-party acts, and statutory authority. With the advent of technology and the quickening of industrialisation, disagreements over who is responsible for dangerous object owners have grown. The idea of strict liability has been very helpful in resolving these disagreements. It enables owners to accept accountability for damage brought on by engaging in risky activities. Furthermore, it calls for care and precaution to be exercised by owners to ensure there is no escape of the thing.Richard A. Posner's commentary on strict liabilityRichard. Posner argues that the existing commentary on strict liability fails to analyse the economic consequences brought about by its existence. He posits that a strict liability standard, which holds individuals or entities responsible for harm regardless of their level of negligence, is less efficient than a negligence-based standard. He suggests that economic theory provides no basis for strict liability, and that a negligence standard allows for a more efficient allocation of resources. However, Posner acknowledges that empirical data could potentially challenge this view, indicating that the relevance of such findings should not be ignored (Posner 1973).Absolute liabilityWhen a profit-making firm engages in actions that are intrinsically dangerous, the principle of absolute liability comes into play. According to this rule, the business will be responsible for all repercussions of these actions. Therefore, the three pillars of enterprise, hazardous activity, and no need for escape form the basis of the absolute liability principle. The Supreme Court of India established the idea of unlimited liability in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, ruling that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity is by far the more appropriate and binding" (M.C Mehta v Union of India 1986). The need to modify the old rule emerged due to three reasons – the developing economy and rapid industrialization, the high agricultural usage of land in India and the old rule not being applicable to present societal conditions (Rana 2020). The rationale behind this principle is to ensure that enterprises exercise necessary care and precaution while undertaking inherently hazardous activities. It exists to protect the interests of those that could be potentially harmed due to these activities. Following two tragic occurrences, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the Oleum Gas Leak in one of Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industries' divisions, the Supreme Court established this premise. The rule was adopted by the Supreme Court out of concern that dangerous industries would be exempt from responsibility for any harm they may have caused. Absolute liability under tort lawThe classification of absolute liability under tort law raises interesting questions about the nature of liability and the level of fault required for legal responsibility. Some legal systems categorize absolute liability as a separate and distinct form of liability, placing it alongside concepts such as negligence and intentional wrongdoing. In this classification, absolute liability is seen as a unique category where fault or intent is not a necessary element for establishing liability. Others argue that absolute liability should not be considered as a distinct category but rather as a modified form of liability within existing frameworks. They contend that liability should ultimately be based on some degree of fault or negligence. From this perspective, absolute liability is seen as a shifting of the burden of proof, where the defendant is presumed liable unless they can prove otherwise. The classification of absolute liability has practical implications for legal analysis and the application of legal principles. It affects the burden of proof, the scope of defenses available, and the remedies that may be awarded. Additionally, the classification can impact the insurance industry, as insurers must assess and underwrite risks associated with absolute liability. Ultimately, the classification of absolute liability under tort law is a matter of legal interpretation and can vary across jurisdictions. It is important for legal systems to carefully consider the implications and consequences of classifying absolute liability and ensure that the classification aligns with the overarching principles of fairness, justice, and societal welfare.ConclusionIn conclusion, the concepts of strict and absolute liability in tort law offer distinct approaches to assigning responsibility for the harm caused. The classification and application of strict and absolute liability remain subject to ongoing legal and societal debates. It is crucial for legal systems to strike a balance between protecting victims, encouraging responsible behavior, and fostering innovation. Consideration should be given to the specific circumstances, potential risks, and social implications of each case when determining the appropriate liability standard. Ultimately, the objective of both these concepts is to ensure that victims are compensated for harm suffered, and that those engaging in hazardous activities bear the appropriate level of responsibility. Striking the right balance between these competing interests requires a nuanced understanding of the legal principles, societal needs, and the evolving complexities of the modern world.ReferencesRylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 (17 July 1868)Posner, Richard A. 1973. “Strict Liability: A Comment.” The Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1): 205–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/724031.Vidisha Rana, "Strict Liability v. Absolute Liability," Supremo Amicus 20 (2020): 596-601M.C Mehta v Union of India. [1986. Supreme Court of India] 1987 SCR (1) 819