Tort Noots of Sir,Lecture By M. Mujahid Rana (Advocate High Court)Class LLB Part 1 Q.13

STRICT/ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

1.  INTROSUCTION

                                   The responsibility or liability is the ultimate object of the law because the wrong doer must make up or suffer for he has already failed in doing what he ought to have done. It is the ultimatum of the law and has it sourced in the supreme will of the state. It arises from the wrong or the breach of duty.

2.  DEFINITION

I.      ACCORDING TO SALMOND

               “Liability or responsibility is the bound of necessity that exists between the wrong doer and the remedy of the wrong doer”

II.   ACCORDING TO MARK BY

                                “The word liability is used to describe the condition of a person who was under a duty to perform.”

  

3.  KINDS OF LIABILTY

Following are the kinds of liability

i.          Civil liability

ii.        Criminal liability

iii.      Remedial liability

iv.      Vicarious liability

v.        Strict liability

4.  MEANING OF LIABILITY

Liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe.

5.  STRICT LIABILITY

                       Wrongs which do not require wrongful intent of Negligence are known as the wrong of strict liability. In such cases, a person is punished for committing wrongs even if he has not guilty mind.

a)    REASONS FOR STRICT LIABILITY

                                                      Strict liability is imposed chiefly where it will be hard to prove by evidence the intention or negligence of the offender.

b)    STRICT LIABILITY IN CIVIL CASES

                                                       Mens Rea is generally irrelevant in civil proceedings as the object is to compensate the plaintiff for his loss and not to punish the defendant, so the rule of strict liability is generally applied in civil cases.

c)     STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES

                                                         Generally in criminal cases, there is no criminal liability unless mens rea is present and strict liability is not imposed

                                 Exceptions

It is usually said that there were only two exceptions at common law to the rule requiring mens rea or where the rule of strict liability is imposed.

i.       Public Nuisance

                             In public nuisance any employer might be held liable for the act of his employees even thought he himself did not know it had taken place.

ii.     Criminal Liable

             In criminal liable a newspaper proprietor is liable for labels published by his employees.

1       Categories of wrongs of Strict Liability

             The most important wrongs of strict liability falls into three categories.

i.                                                                                            Mistake of law

ii.                                                                                          Mistake of fact

iii.                                                                                        Inevitable accident

6.  APPLICATION OF STRICT LIABILITY

                                Strict liability most often applies either to ultra hazardous activities or in products liability cases.

7.  FIRST CASE LAW ON STICT LIABILITY

Case of Woodrow 1846

                                Defendant was found guilty of having in his possession adulterated tobacco, although he did not know it was adulterated. It was held defendant is liable even if the adulteration was discoverable only by a nice chemical analysis.

               CASE

           Fact

      Fletcher was working in a coal mine under a lease, Rayland who was neighbour of Fletcher desired to erect a reservoir for storing water, for this purpose he employed a contactor whose labour, while excavating the soil discovered some discuss shafts and passage had been filled with loose earth and rubbish. The contactor did not take the trouble to pack these. Shafts and passages with earth so as to bear pressure of water in the reservoir when filled. When construction was made and it was partly filed with the water the vertical shafts gave away and burst downwards. The water flooded the old passage and also the plaintiff mine, so that the mine could not be worked the plaintiff sued for damages.

Held

                                    It was held that of a person brings or accumulates on his land anything which if escapes and causes damage to his neighbour he is responsible, however careful he may have been and whatever precaution he may have taken to prevent damage.

a)                Essentials Conditions for the Application of Rule

                                          The essential conditions for the application of rule of Rayland vs. Fletcher are as under.

Anything likes to do mischief if it escapes.

No natural use of the land.

b)  Exceptions to the Rule in Ryland vs. Fletcher

                                                There are five important exception to the principal laid down in Rayland’s vs. Fletcher.

Act of God or vs. Major.

Wrongful or Malicious act of stranger.

Consent of the plaintiff.

Statutory authority.

Common benefit.

Default of the plaintiff.

Natural user of the land.

Bringing and keeping thing which are not dangerous.

9. CONCLUSION

                                       In strict liability defendant may be held responsible for the harm caused to the plaintiff although he had no intention to do so.