In this article you will learn about Absolute Liability in Tort.
Absolute Liability
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, famously known as the Oleum Gas Leak case, the rule of strict liability was modified and the doctrine of absolute liability was developed. This case was a significant turning point in the history of Indian law by establishing a new rule. According to Justice P. N. Bhagwati, where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of accident in the operation on such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting. For example, in escape of toxic gases, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principles of strict liability under the rule of Rylands and Fletcher. Law presumes that enterprises are bound to pay all the compensation to the parties affected. The reason behind this :
- Inherently dangerous or hazardous
- Resources to protect and make the measurement
- It is carried on for personal benefit. So he is bound to bear the liability.
- Resources to prevent the accident by the enterprise.
Essential Elements of Absolute Liability
1. Dangerous Thing - The liability will only arise if any dangerous thing escapes from the owner’s land. And that dangerous thing is likely to cause damage and can injure any person or person’s property on its escape. In various cases of strict liability, things like a large pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, fumes, rusty wires, etc. have been held dangerous.
2. Escape - Any dangerous or hazardous thing that escapes from the defendant’s control and causes damage to the plaintiff’s property or injures any person will come under the ambit of absolute liability. In the case of Read vs Lyons and Co., the plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s manufacturing company. A piece of fabric exploded and she suffered severe injury while doing her duty. The court held that the plaintiff was doing her duty and the accident occurred within the premises and course of employment. It was held that the defendant cannot escape from his liability and the principle of strict liability is not applicable in this case so the defendant was held liable.
3. Non-Natural use of land - If water is collected only for domestic use then it is not considered non-natural use but if it is collected in large quantities like in a reservoir then it is called as non-natural use of land. In the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, it was held that collecting water in large quantities amounts to non-natural use of land. Growing trees or plants on land might be natural, but growing poisonous plants may not be natural.
4. Mischief - To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff must demonstrate that any hazardous chemical has escaped and resulted in damages.
This article on Absolute Liability in Tort is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. Explore more articles and resources on LawStudyPoint.com. Also, check out the Dipshikha Anand YouTube channel for helpful videos and updates.