Strict Liability In Jurisprudence

The principle of strict liability in jurisprudence plays a pivotal role in holding individuals or entities accountable for harm caused by dangerous activities, irrespective of negligence or intent. This legal doctrine ensures that those engaging in non-natural and hazardous activities bear responsibility if their actions lead to damage or loss. Originating from the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), strict liability has become a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide, balancing the scales of justice for affected parties. In this blog, we explore the essentials of strict liability, its exceptions, and notable case laws to understand its application in modern jurisprudence.

Essentials Of Strict Liability

These are the essentials that are required to be established for strict liability principle:

Dangerous Thing

The defendant must have bought a dangerous thing. It should be capable of causing harm and danger to other people. This can be any explosive, toxic gas, electricity, sewage, vibration, etc. To give an example, the release of harmful gases and a water reservoir would all be considered to be dangerous things.

Escape

The dangerous thing, as defined above, must escape from the defendant. It is only through its escape that it can lead to damage. For example, Anita is working in a factory of explosives. While she was working, one of the explosives exploded, causing her injury. In this case, there has been no escape of explosives, so there is no liability.

Damage Or Loss

The escaped dangerous thing should result in some loss or harm to the plaintiff.

Non-Natural Use Of Land

The defendant should have used the land in a way that isn't natural. Like in the landmark case of Ryland vs. Fletcher (1868), collecting water was considered to be a non-natural use of land.

Also Read : Application of Strict Liability in Personal Injury

Exceptions To The Rule Of Strict Liability

These are the exceptions to the rule of strict liability:

Plaintiff’s Fault

If the plaintiff suffers loss because of his acts, then he can't seek liability from the defendant. For example, Kiran decides to go to a Zoo. However, she ignores all warnings and gets injured by an animal. She can't sue the authorities of the zoo for damages she suffered.

Act Of God

An act of God forms an exception to strict liability. An act of God is a sudden act that is not caused by any human intervention but happens naturally, such as earthquakes, droughts, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc. If damages are caused because of an act of God, the defendant can't be made liable.

Act Of A Third Party

If the harm is caused because of the involvement of a third party, then the principle of strict liability does not apply. In such cases, the defendant can't be held liable. For example, Amit and Sumit are neighbors. Amit is the tenant. If he is disturbed by construction done in Sumit's house, he can't sue his landlord.

Statutory Authority

If an act is done because of a provision of law, then the defendant can't be made liable for the act. Let's say Suman and his company were involved in supplying water flow under an Act. If the pipeline bursts without any fault, then statutory protection will be granted to him for liability.

Common Benefit

If the act is done for the general benefit of the plaintiff and defendant, then it also forms an exception to strict liability. For example, because of the acts of the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant's reservoir gets overflowed, resulting in losses. Then, since the reservoir was installed for the benefit of both parties, the defendant can't be held liable.

Consent Of The Plaintiff

Consent forms the last exception to the principle of strict liability. The basis of this exception is that if the plaintiff agrees to an act, then the defendant is not liable for any harm caused by it.

Also Read : Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

Case Laws On Strict Liability In Jurisprudence

Here are some case laws that illustrate the concept of strict liability:

Ryland vs. Fletcher (1868)

This is the case that introduced the strict liability principle. In this case, the defendant made a dam that collapsed and caused loss to its neighbor. The Court held the defendant to be liable. The principle was that since he was the one who made it, he had to ensure that it didn't escape and cause damage.

Northwestern Utilities vs. London Guarantee And Accident Co. (1936)

In this case, the defendant was a gas company. There was a gas leak that led to a disastrous explosion. Though the defendant company wasn't negligent, they were still held liable for the act. This imposed strict liability on them. Gas, being a harmful substance, escaped and caused losses, making the defendant liable.

M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumar (2002)

In this case, the Apex Court held the electricity board liable for causing the death of the plaintiff. Here, because of poor maintenance by the defendant company, a live wire fell on the plaintiff, and he died. The Court applied this principle to hold the electricity board liable.

Madras Railway Company vs. Zemindar (1874)

Here, because of sparks coming from a railway engine, the crops nearby were burnt to ashes. The Court here also applied the principle of strict liability to hold the railway companies liable for the harm caused. Operating a train was a dangerous activity, and the absence of negligence couldn't lift their liability.

Conclusion

The principle of strict liability in jurisprudence plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from harm caused by dangerous activities, even when no negligence or intent is involved. It imposes responsibility on those who engage in inherently hazardous actions or possess dangerous things, ensuring that the harmed parties can seek compensation without having to prove fault. However, the law also recognizes certain exceptions where strict liability does not apply, such as acts of God, third-party involvement, or statutory authority. Over time, case laws like Ryland vs. Fletcher have cemented the importance of strict liability, and its application ensures that safety and accountability remain key aspects in handling potentially dangerous activities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) that provide further clarity on the concept of strict liability.

Q1.What is strict liability?

Strict liability is a legal principle that holds a person or entity responsible for the harm caused by their actions, regardless of intent or negligence. If a dangerous thing escapes and causes damage, the responsible party is liable.

Q2.What are the essential elements of strict liability?

The essential elements include the presence of a dangerous thing, the escape of that thing, damage caused to the plaintiff, and the non-natural use of land or resources.

Q3.Can a defendant avoid liability under strict liability?

Yes, under certain exceptions such as the plaintiff's fault, an act of God, the involvement of a third party, statutory authority, common benefit, or if the plaintiff consented to the act.

Q4.What is the landmark case for strict liability?

Ryland vs. Fletcher (1868) is the landmark case that established the principle of strict liability. In this case, the court held the defendant liable for damage caused by water escaping from a reservoir.

Q5.Is strict liability applicable in every situation involving harm?

No, strict liability only applies to specific situations involving dangerous activities or substances. The defendant is not liable if the harm was caused by an act of God, a third party, or if statutory protection is in place.