We are all aware of the fact that if we commit any crime or tort then we’ll be punished under law. But can you imagine that even if you don’t have an entirely wrong motive to commit a tort, your act itself will qualify for a punishment. Strange! Isn’t it?
What is actually this liability without fault thing?? What are the ingredients of this tort? What is the difference between strict liability and absolute liability? What are the exceptions to this tort? What are the remedies available for such tort?
These are a few questions that we’ve tried to discuss in this blog !
Let us first have a look at the Explanation of the term ‘No Fault Liability’
Strict liability is the principle which evolved from the famous case of Ryland v Fletcher in the
year 1868. This principle clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages.
NOTE: This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person keeping it
and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.
What are the essentials to constitute a ‘no fault liability’?
1. Storage of dangerous thing
According to this rule, the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land, provided the thing collected was a dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, vests in the person storing such thing. In Ryland v Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The water collected in the reservoir was of a huge quantity and was thus regarded to be of potential danger.
2. Escape of the thing
It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant. It should not be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.
For example: If the poisonous plants growing on the defendant’s land escapes and enters the plaintiff’s land and is then eaten up by the cattle on the plaintiff’s land, the defendant is liable for the damages caused to the cattle of the plaintiff.
NOTE: If the plaintiff’s cattle themselves enter the land of the defendant and eat the poisonous
plants and die, the defendant will not be liable since there was no escape of his property.
3. Non-natural use of land
For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not by the ordinary use of land or such a use for general benefit of community.
What are the exceptions to this tort?
1. Plaintiff’s own fault
If somehow the plaintiff himself enters into the land of the defendant and injures himself and then claims for damages, he is not liable for the damages since he himself went forward to the dangerous thing. The plaintiff cannot recover anything if the damage was caused due to the unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiff’s apparatus and such damage won’t cause any harm to a person carrying ordinary business there. Until and unless there is escape of the dangerous thing, the defendant can’t be held liable.
2. Act of God
Where the escape is caused directly by natural causes without human intervention in “circumstances which no human foresight can prevent and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility,” the defense of Act of God applies.
3. Consent of the plaintiff
In this exception, there is a common benefit to the defendant and the plaintiff as in the case of volenti non fit injuria.
For example: If the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours and share the same water source on the land of the defendant, if any damage is caused to the plaintiff due to that collected water, the defendant won’t be liable.
NOTE: when a festival is organized and the display of fireworks causes damages to the crowd, the organizers will be held liable since the display will not be deemed to have been conducted for the benefit of all.
4. Act of third party
The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a stranger. A stranger will be a person who is not the servant of the defendant nor is under the control of the defendant. However, if the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the defendant, due care must be
taken by the defendant to avoid the damages.
5. Statutory Authority
An act done under the authority of the statute is a very strong defense to an action for tort.
NOTE: The defence cannot be pleaded if there is any kind of negligence on the part of the defendant who is under statutory authority.
How is absolute liability different from strict liability?
In laymen’s language, this can be explained as:
Absolute Liability = Strict Liability – Exceptions
This is liability without fault, yet no excuse for it. Conviction is secured simply on proof of action alone and motive is not required. Therefore negligence is irrelevant and a mistake of fact is not a defense.
Example: consensual sex with an underage person.
What are the remedies available for this tort?
1. Action for Damages
2. Injunction
3. Specific restitution of a property (in an action for detention of property)
4. Recovery of land (in case of wrongful dispossession).
5. Other legal remedies
This article has been contributed by Anurag Mishra, First Year, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS