Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort which makes individuals or agencies liable for their actions even without the need to prove fault or negligence. Unlike other forms of liability, strict liability imposes responsibility based on the act itself.
Here you can also apply the maxim "res ipsa loquitur" when focusing on the inherent risk or danger that is associated with the incident. This article aims to explore the concept of strict liability, and make the people aware of this concept which will help in your student life as well as your law career. In this post, we will see its essentials, exceptions, and provide insights through relevant case laws.
Definition of Strict Liability:
Generally we made the person liable for its own fault but in Strict liability a party could be responsible for their actions, regardless of intent or fault. It typically applies to those conduct that are inherently dangerous, for example - manufacturing of hazardous materials and owning dangerous animals.
The crucial part in strict liability is that mere occurrence of the injury is sufficient. There is no need to prove negligence in the cases of strict liability.
Essentials of Strict Liability:
1. Dangerous Substances:
A person will be held strictly liable only for using “dangerous” substances. This liability arises when the defendant doing activities which are inherently dangerous or involve a high risk of harm. Example - Engaging in ultrahazardous activities, storing and transporting explosive materials, keeping wild animals, toxic gasses, bio-hazardous chemicals, etc. come under the dangerous things definition. For imposing strict liability, it is important to have a dangerous substance. Any substance which will cause harm when it is escaped is considered a dangerous substance.
2. Escape:
This is a second necessary condition to make the person liable under this liability. The defendant will be liable if the material escaped from the premises. After escape it should not be within the reach of the defendant.
For Example - the defendant has a poisonous plant at his property. The leaves of the plant escape from the property. Hanging leaves eaten by the plaintiff's cattle, as a result the cattle die. Under this, defendants will be held strictly liable for the compensation to the victim.
In other condition - if the cattle enters into the premises of the defendant and then eats the poisonous leaves. The defendant would not be liable. In the judgement of Reads v. Lyons & Co. it was held that if there is no escape, the strict liability will not arise.
3. Unnatural Use of the Land:
In strict liability it also includes non-natural use of the land. In the very landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water reservoir was deemed to be an unnatural use of the land. The term “non-natural” is to be used, where some special use of land increases the danger to others.
Storage of water for domestic use is considered as natural use while storing water with intention to energize a mill was deemed to be an unnatural use of land. Whenever these three conditions are satisfied concurrently to constitute a strict liability.
Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:
In strict liability the defendant is liable even if there is no fault. Even then there are several defenses available which you can use to defend yourself. The very famous principle of strict liability was established in the landmark case Rylands v. Fletcher. Three circumstances are required to make a person liable under this - Dangerous substance when escaped from the premise of the defendant and caused damage due to that escape.
Exceptions:-
1. Act done by Independent contractor
The act which is done by an independent contract will not fall under the category of strict liability. This is an exception of liability. When any person hires a contractor to do any work and there are some flaws in that work. Then, this will not be considered a strict liability.
2. Act done by third party
If there is a third party involved in the incident hence damage caused. Then the defendant can take this defense for not being liable under strict liability. For example, a DJ party running in A's house by this party's neighbor got disturbed and filed a suit against his landlord. Here, the suit will not sustain because the act is not related to the owner; this is a third party wrongful act.
3. Act of God
If the harm is caused by an act of God which is an unforeseeable, sudden, direct and irresistible act of nature, then the defendant can be exempt from the liability. The damage will be caused regardless of how many precautions a person takes. Natural calamities such as tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and extraordinary rainfall are examples of acts of God.
4. Plaintiff’s own fault
In such cases when the plaintiff also contributes to the incident then he suffers the damage. Here, the plaintiff can not shift liability on another person despite how much damage he suffers.
Case Laws Related to Strict Liability:
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868):
This is an important judgment in the law of tort by which strict liability has been developed. The concept of strict liability has been derived in this case. Facts - the defendants made a reservoir on their land because of some leakage in the reservoir. The reservoir exploded and flooded a neighboring coal mine.
The court held strictly liable for the compensation to the plaintiff. The court said that anyone who brings onto their land anything likely to do mischief and if it escapes are strictly liable for the consequences.
Stambovsky v. Ackley (1991):
The court made the liability of the seller related to selling a house that was allegedly haunted. The court stated that the seller will be held liable, because he failed to disclose the haunting. He was strictly liable as the haunting was considered a condition.
McDonald's Coffee Case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 1994):
It is an often cited case in tort which involves strict liability principles. A 79-year-old customer Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's for suffering damage after getting severe burns from hot coffee. McDonald's was found strictly liable by the court for the coffee's unreasonably high temperature.
Rule of Absolute Liability
The Supreme Court of India established another version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987). In this case, there is a company called Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries in which the harmful Oleum gas had escaped from the factory. The gas had caused a lot of damage to people nearby.
The Supreme Court held that, despite all these facts, the strict liability rule was inadequate in this modern era. This is because modern industries and chemicals are more dangerous and hazardous. Hence, in the result the court laid down the rule of absolute liability.
There is a difference between absolute and strict liability because in absolute liability "no exception" will apply. Accordingly, the plaintiff who suffered damage will have unlimited liability to compensate. In India, this rule applied in many cases to create deterrence.
Conclusion:
Generally, people will be held liable for their own conduct but this liability is the exception of fault based liabilities. This person is held liable even if there is no fault by him. This rule or principle is also known as the "no fault liability". There are several exceptions also present in strict liability which we have discussed above.
