STRICT LIABILITY IN INDIA AND ENGLAND

(Project Report)

Submitted To:

Dr. Kiran Kori

Faculty Member in Law of Torts

Submitted By:

Prashant Kerketta
B.A. LL.B (HONOURS) Student
Semester III, Section –B, Roll No: 119

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur – 492002(C.G.)

1
 Certificate

I, Prashant Kerketta , hereby declare that, this project report entitled, ‘Strict liability

in India and England’ submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur is record

of an original work done by me under the guidance of Dr.Kiran Kori , Faculty Member,

H.N.L.U., Raipur and that no part of this work has been plagiarized without citations.

Prashant Kerketta

Semester III

Section - B

Roll no 119

2
 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

Strict Liability

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault
(such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred
and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it
considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour r and needless loss by
forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of
simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter
how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner
is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks
proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any
damage that occurs. A more everyday example is that of a passenger on public transport who
was unable to purchase a valid ticket for the journey due to extraneous circumstances, such as
being unable to purchase a ticket for whatever reason. Under strict liability it does not matter
if the ticket machine was broken, or the train was early, or there were no staff at the counter.
The legal responsibility for holding a valid ticket falls on the passenger and the passenger
should not have travelled without one regardless of the circumstances.

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant
can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the
defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the
product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If
the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred,
additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.

3
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The problem arising here is that both India and England have Strict Liability but its
application in both country vary from each other. These differences can be seen in various
case judgements involving Strict Liability in respective countries.

4
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The primary objective of this project is to show the difference between Strict Liability in
India and England.

The other objectives includes-

 The circumstances in which these are used.

 Various cases involving Strict Liability in both countries.

HYPOTHESIS

As we all know during drafting of our constitution Strict Liability has been borrowed from
England’s constitution. Therefore people think these rule is replica in both country, but in real
it varies from each other.

5
 OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Dr. R.k. Bangia.

2. Dr S.K.Kapoor.
3. G.P.Singh.
4. Ratnalal and Dheerajlal.

Methodology

This study has been carried out in a descriptive manner. Secondary and published
documented data has been collected through various sources and analyzed accordingly. Many
of the available literature and studies have also been consulted and reviewed to make the
study more objective. No field work has been carried out in the development of this work

6
 CHAPETERISATION

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................Introduction

CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................Importance in current scenario

CHAPTER 3 :...................................... Evolution of strict liability in India through cases

CHAPTER 4.............................Difference between strict liability in india to its principle

CHAPTER 5 : ...................................................................................................Conclusion

7
 CHAPTER 2: Importance in Current Scenario

Strict Liability is the liability in which the wrongdoer is liable to the acts for which he
is not responsible. The need for it was felt in the 19th century, to improve working
and safety standards in factories. The doctrine of Strict Liability has formed its
foundation in the England’s case Rylands vs. Fletcher1 in which : The defendant,
owned a mill, where he constructed a reservoir to supply water to the mill. This
reservoir was constructed over old coal mines, and the mill owner had no reason to
suspect that these old diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in the reservoir
ran down the old shafts and flooded the colliery. Blackburn J. held the mill owner to
be liable, on the principle that ―The person who for his own purposes brings on his
land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must
keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. On appeal this principle of
liability without fault was affirmed by the House of Lords but restricted to non-
natural users vide. Thus, corporations that handle water, electricity, oil, noxious
fumes, colliery spoil and poisonous vegetation are covered by this doctrine.
Negligence of the victims is no excuse. The doctrine also operates as a loss-
distribution mechanism: The person indulging in such hazardous activities (usually a
corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss through insurance and higher
prices of its products.
However, later decisions in England diluted the principle by introducing several
exceptions. The Shriram judgment categorically said that such exceptions would
not be applicable in India. The present verdict further emphasises this point and
expands its scope.

1
M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MISRA
RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)SINGH, K.N. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 1086 1987 SCR (1) 819; 1987 SCC (1)
395 JT 1987 (1) 1; 1986 SCALE(2)1188

8
The doctrine of Strict Liability evolved in India the case of MC Mehta’s where the Supreme
Court had imposed the ―strict liability principle on erring industries. It ruled that ―if the
enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its
profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing
the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
as an appropriate item of its overhead‖. The court also emphasised that there are no
exceptions to the rule of strict liability. Moreover, the amount of compensation would depend
upon the capacity of the enterprise and not the earning capacity of the individual victims.

In the Union of India vs Prabhakaran, where the Supreme Court had extended its cover to
public utilities like the railways, electricity distribution companies, public corporations and
local bodies ―which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit‖. In
this case a woman fell on a railway track and was fatally run over. Her husband demanded
compensation. The railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to board a moving
train. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and said that her contributory negligence
should not be considered in such untoward incidents the railway has strict liability.

The Supreme Court had applied this doctrine to the electricity mishaps. An electric wire had
snapped and fallen on the road. On that night, a cyclist came in contact with it. He died on the
spot. His widow demanded damages from the electricity authorities, MPSEB vs Shail
Kumari, 2002. The board argued that the wire belonged to a pilferer and that it was not
negligent. Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court said: ―It is no defence on the part of
the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning off energy to his private property
and the electrocution was from such diverted line… Authorities manning such dangerous
commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. The basis of the
liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.

9
 STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT LAW AND CRIMINAL LAW

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault
(such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred
and that the defendant was responsible.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for ―guilty mind‖) does
not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for
―guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to
other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be
convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their
acts or omissions criminal.

The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal
negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. These laws are applied either in
regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person
upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to
maximise the deterrent value of the offence. The courts to apply this doctrine must examine
the overall purpose of the statute. If the intention is to introduce quasi-criminal offences,
strict liability will be acceptable to give quick penalties to encourage future compliance, e.g.
fixed-penalty parking offences. But, if the policy issues involved are sufficiently significant
and the punishments more severe, the test must be whether reading in a mens rea requirement
will defeat Parliament’s intention in creating the particular offence, i.e. if defendants might
escape liability too easily by pleading ignorance, this would not address the ―mischief that
Parliament was attempting to remedy.

10
 CHAPTER 3 : Evolution of the Strict Liability in India through cases

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings
on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes
and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. This rule
applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the
land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the
person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person
injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. The rule evolved, when all the
developments of science and technology had not taken place, cannot afford any guidance in
evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of
the present day economy and social structure. In a modern industrial society with highly
developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous
industries are necessary to carry on as part of developmental programme, the Court need not
feel inhibited by this rule merely because the new law does not recognise the rule of strict and
absolute liability in case of an enterprise engaged in hazardous and dangerous activity

(1).The Supreme Court in India said that law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the
fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the
country. Law cannot afford to remain static. The Court cannot allow judicial thinking to be
constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or in any other foreign country. It
also said that, it has to build up its own jurisprudence, evolve new principles and lay down
new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly
industrialized economy.

Also the Court should not hesitate to evolve such principles of liability merely because it
has not been so done in England. In the past years the court has expanded the horizon of the
Article 12 and the purpose of it has not been to destroy the raison deter of creating
corporations but to advance the human rights jurisprudence. An enterprise which is engaged
in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health
and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes
an absolute non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that if any harm results to anyone,
the enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if
any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise must be absolutely liable to

11
compensate for such harm irrespective of the fact that the enterprise had taken all reasonable
care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.

If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its
profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing
the cost of any accident arising on account of such activity as an appropriate item of its
overheads. The enterprise alone has there source to discover and guard against hazards or
dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards. The measure of compensation in
such kind of cases must be co-related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because
such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the
enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused
on account of an accident in carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by
the enterprise. Indian Courts are not bound by the American exposition of constitutional
law, because the social conditions in India are different.

Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from
the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm
must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on
the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such
permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on
account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its over-
heads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only
on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. This
principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential
hazards. Therefore, the court held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape
of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are

12
affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which
operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
Also, pointed out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to in the
preceding paragraph must be co-related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise
because such compensation must have a deferent effect. The larger and more prosperous the
enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused
on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
by the enterprise.

13
 CHAPTER 4 :

Difference between the Strict Liability in India with respect to the principle of it evolved
in the Rylands v. Fletcher

• The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher requires non

-natural use of land by the defendant and escape from his land of the thing, which causes
damage. But the rule in MC Mehta v. Union of India is not dependant upon any such
conditions. The necessary requirements for applicability of the new rule are that the
defendant is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and that harm results to
anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity

• The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises
for the rule requires escape of the thing, which causes harm from the premises. The new rule
makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is carried
on and persons outside the premises for escape of the thing causing harm from the premises is
not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule.

• Damages awardable where the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applies will be ordinary or
compensatory where as in Mehta’s case the court can allow exemplary damages and the
larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it.

14
 CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION

Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without
proof of carelessness or fault.With the development of the scientific technology the need for
the inherently hazardous substance increasing, in order to meet the development program,
but, with this simultaneously the law of India is also indulging into the theory of the
―welfare state. So to protect its people the court of India is more stringent & rigorous in its
approach to adopt the Strict Liability principle, comparatively to the England. So, in a crime
of strict liability (criminal) or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no
intention to commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether
the defence of a mistake of fact is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact
is not a defence.

15
 Webliography

 https://legaldictionary.net/strict-liability

 https://study.com/academy

 https://law.freeadvice.com › Law Advice › Litigation › Legal Remedies › ARTICLE

 https://torts.uslegal.com/strict-liability

 https://www.legalmatch.com

16