Law of Torts

Strict & Absolute Liability

 Strict Liability
•  Any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held
responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any
damage.
• No fault Liability
(D)Rylands v Fletcher(P)
 Conditions
• Dangerous Substances
• Escape
• Non-natural Use
• Crowhurst V Amersham Burial Board

If the branches of a poisonous tree that is planted on the defendant’s land

spreads out to the neighbouring plaintiff’s land, this amounts to the escape of
that dangerous, poisonous thing from the boundaries or control of the
defendant and onto the plaintiff’s land. Now, the issue arises, if the cattle of the
plaintiff nibbles on these leaves, then the defendant will be held liable under
the mentioned rule even when nothing was done intentionally on his part.
• Read V Lyons and Co

The plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s shell manufacturing company,

while she was on duty within the premises of the company, a shell being manufactured
there exploded due to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. A case was filed against the
defendant company but the court let off the defendant giving the verdict that strict liability
is not applicable here as the explosion took place within the defendant’s premises, the
concept of escape of a dangerous thing like the shell from the boundaries of the defendant
is missing here. Also negligence on the part of the defendant could not be proved.
 Sarju Prasad V Mahadeo Prasad
• The defendants dug a trench on their land but adjoining the plaintiff’s wall
. This resulted in uncovering of the foundations of the plaintiff wall and
the accumulation of water therein . Thus the damage was caused to the
walls and the floors of the plaintiff's house. It was held that there was non
natural use of the land on the part of the defendants .
• According to Winfield in Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, (Sweet & Maxwell:
13th Edition, 1989) at p.443), the presence of several defences allows the
defendant to get saved from bearing the onus of any liability as if he can
prove that any of the said defences apply to his case, the case will not
stand and he shall not be held liable.
 Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability

1. Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the
defendant wouldn’t be held liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact
with the dangerous thing.
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. 
2.Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event which is beyond
the control of any human agency.
Nichols V Marsland
• The defendant had some artificial lakes that he had formed by damming up a
natural stream for several years. However, an extra-ordinary rainfall that year
greater and more violent that any rainfall ever witnessed there broke the artificial
embankments by the stream and the rushing water carried away with it four
bridges of the plaintiff. When sued for damages, the court held the defendant not
liable as she was not negligent and this being an act of god was beyond her control.
3.Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is
caused due to the act of a third party. 
 Box v Jubb
Where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed because a third party
emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court held that the
defendant wouldn’t be liable.
4. Consent of the Plaintiff
Peters V Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. Birmingham
• The plaintiff took on rent a shop in the defendant’s premises after full knowledge of the fact that the
defendant had a theatre and rehearsal room attached to the same premises. The theatre had a water
storage mechanism to douse fire in case of an emergency. Unfortunately, the water container burst due to
excessive frost and the water leaked into the plaintiff’s shop thereby damaging his goods. He sued the
defendant for payment of damages suffered by him. The court held the defendant not liable as the
plaintiff had impliedly consented to the presence of the dangers of a water storage tank situated right
next to his shop by taking the defendant’s premises on rent.
5.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.

Green vs. Chelsea Waterworks Co

The defendant company was under a statutory order to maintain continuous water
supply. A main belonging to the company burst without any negligence of the
defendants and flooded the plaintiff’s premises with water. It was held that the
company would not be liable as it was engaged in performance of a statutory duty.
 Rylands Rule in Indian Cases
• Darshan Ram v Nazar Ram AIR 1983 P& H253
• Madras Railway Co. V Zamindar of Carvetinagaram
• K.Nagireddi V Government Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1982 A.P. 119
 Absolute Liability
• Absolute liability is nothing but applying Strict Liability but without any
exceptions of strict liability. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved
in the case of MC Mehta V Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case.)
 Facts :A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086

• Shriram Food and Fertilizers situated in a densely populated region of Kirti Nagar in Delhi consisting
of over 2 lakh people was involved in the manufacturing of hazardous products like caustic soda,
oleum and chlorine etc.
• A writ petition was filed by a social activist lawyer named MC Mehta before the Supreme court
seeking closure and relocation of the industrial establishment to a place where it would not pose a
threat to people’s lives. But the Supreme Court allowed the industry to continue its operations as usual.
• During the pendency of this petition, there was a leakage of Oleum gas from one of its units on 4th
and 6th December 1985 which caused a huge amount of harm to its residents including the death of an
advocate. The leakage was a result of the bursting of the tank containing the gas which occurred due to
the collapse of the structure on which the tank was built which caused widespread fear among the
residents.
• Another tragedy of the same kind occurred two days later though a minor one when
another leakage occurred due to the escape of oleum gas from one of the joints in the
pipe even before the residents had barely recovered from the previous tragedy. Soon after
the 2nd incident, all the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association
filed for compensation for all the citizens who suffered damage due to the accident.
• The Delhi administration ordered for ceasing of all the operations and to remove all such
hazardous substances from the establishment within 7 days or to appear before the court
to show cause as to why this order should not be enforced against them. In addition to
this, since a lot of important questions relating to substantial issues of law were involved
(Art 21 and 32), the Supreme Court ordered it to be referred to a larger bench.
 Issues :
The oleum gas leak case led to various issues to come into the light, which was:
• Whether these harmful industries should be permitted to operate in these areas?
• Whether a regulating mechanism should be established if they are permitted to function
in such areas?
• How should the liability and amount of compensation be determined in such cases?
• How does Article 32 of the Constitution extend in these cases?
• Whether the rule of Absolute Liability or Ryland v Fletcher is to be followed?
• Whether ‘Shriram’ could be considered to be a ‘State’ within the ambit of Article 12?
 Observation :
• Justice Bhagwati after taking into account the health and safety concerns of the
citizens held that these industries must continue to operate because they
contribute to a large portion of the country’s economic and social development,
therefore stating that the petition to eliminate these toxic industries cannot be
allowed.
• He held that the risk/danger factor can be reduced to a considerable extent by
taking all the possible measures to ensure that these industries must be situated
in an environment where the citizens are the least-affected and all the safety
protocols must be strictly adhered by these industries
• It also would lead to unemployment of 1400 people was another serious concern.
Subsequently, the industry was ordered to be reopened on a temporary basis under 11
conditions and a panel of experts were appointed to control the industry’s operations.
• Some of the important conditions framed were:-
• The Central Pollution Control Board must appoint an Inspector for the purpose of
inspection and to see that the pollution levels are under control according to the
standards set by Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
• To constitute a safety committee for all the employees.
• The industry must publicize the appropriate methods of usage, disposal and treatment of
chlorine.
• To train and instruct the employees regarding the safety of the plant through audio-
visual services and install loudspeakers to alert neighbors in case of gas leakage.
• To make sure that the workers must use safety equipment such as belts and helmets.
• That the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman, that in case of
escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen on people living in vicinity they
will be “personally responsible” for payment of compensation of such death or injury.
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case Study
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India  1990 AIR 273

• The facts of the case are that On the night of 2nd December 1984, the plant
leaked 40 tons of dangerous gas (methyl isocyanate). Due to the leakage,
many people were affected. The adjoining area around the plant became a
gas chamber because of which 3000 people died, and various others were
injured. During the investigation, it was found that all the safety systems of
the plant were non-functional. The Supreme Court then evolved the rule of
absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant
would be liable for the damage caused without considering the exceptions to
the strict liability rule .
 Vizag case study
Lg Polymers India Private Limited vs Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control 
• The chemical plant was originally called as Hindustan polymers which
was established in the year of 1961. In 1978 it was merged with
McDowell Holdings, a subsidiary of united breweries group and again in
1987 it was acquired by the South Korean company called LG Chem
which was renamed again to LG polymers India. The plant manufactures
polystyrene, co-polymer products and engineering plastic compounds. The
leak from the plant is said to be from the two chemical tanks that has been
unattended since March 2020 due to the covid 19 lockdown. 
• FIR was filed against LG polymers under the section 278 for making the
atmosphere noxious, under section 284 for negligent conduct with respect
to poisonous substance, under section 285 for negligent contact with
respect to fire or combustible, under section 337 for causing hurt by act
endangering life or personal safety of others, under section 338 for
causing grievous hurt by act endangering life and under section 304 by
causing death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide of the Indian Penal Code.
 Compensation to be awarded

After the inquiry of the accident, the NGT ordered LG Polymers India to deposit an
amount of Rs 50 crore with the Vizag DM. the amount of compensation is derived
from the actual value of the plant. It is usually directly proportionate to that of the
price value of the enterprise.
Also, Andhra Pradesh government donated Rs 1 Crore each for the kin of the
deceased and for those who were injured in the incident making a total of 30 crores.
 Defences:
• LG Polymers took the defence of Covid19 or the spread of Corona Virus
as an Act of God for their mistake and inability to manage the plant.
Furtherance to which, they claimed that the plant was closed for 40 days
due to the lockdown. They have taken several defences like, the number of
deaths is not large, and that the gas has no potential effects on health.
 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
• This law requires all enterprises that own or have control over handling of
any hazardous substance, to subscribe to a public liability insurance policy
cover whereby they are insured against the claims from third parties for
death or injury or property damage caused by hazardous substances
handled in their enterprise.
• The compensation payable under this Act is also irrespective of the
company’s neglect.
 Rules for establishing absolute liability
• Hazardous or inherently dangerous activities:
• Escape not necessary:
• No exception: 
• Applies to Non-Natural and Natural uses of land: 
• Extent of Damages:
 Enactments :
• The Environment Protection Act, 1986
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
• Hazardous Rules, 2008
• Chemical Accident Rules 1996