In this article you will learn about the Difference Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability.
Introduction
Strict liability and absolute liability are both doctrines in tort law where a party can be held liable without fault. In strict liability, a defendant is held liable for damages caused by their actions or products, even if they were not negligent, provided certain defences (like an act of God or the plaintiff's own fault) may be available. Absolute liability, on the other hand, is a stricter version where the defendant is liable without any defences, regardless of fault or intent, typically in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or substances (e.g., environmental hazards or industrial accidents). Absolute liability offers no exceptions or defences.
What is Strict Liability?
Strict liability arises when the accused person, that is the defendant who keeps any dangerous chemicals or substance on their property is accountable for any errors made if those substances somehow escape and cause harm; or brings any hazardous substances into his/her organisation and due to the escape of that substance, any harm to any other person is caused. In such cases, the defendant will be held liable for bringing or keeping the hazardous stuff. Even when the defendant has no intention to cause any harm to any other person, they could still be held strictly liable. Strict Liability covers non-natural use of land, dangerous or hazardous substances or escape. Here escape of hazardous substances is necessary. It undertakes some exceptions like the plaintiff’s own fault, mutual benefit, etc. There is a very narrow scope in strict liability. The concept of strict liability arose from the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868).
Key Takeaways for Strict Liability :
- Defendant is always made accountable for bringing or keeping any hazardous stuff into the organisation, even if he has no intention of hurting the other person.
- The burden of proof is always on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable to pay the damages.
- In order to receive the compensation, the plaintiff has to show the harm or damages caused to him/her.
- The rule or concept of strict liability arose after the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher.
- ‘Escape’ of the hazardous/dangerous substance is essential in strict liability.
What is Absolute Liability?
Absolute liability occurs when any person or any kind of organisation uses the hazardous or dangerous substance for profit-making activity and in that duration, any harm is being caused to any other party. Here the owners of the company or the person doing so(using or keeping the hazardous or dangerous substance for profit-making activity) will completely be held liable for the damage or harm caused. Complete damage is compensated to the injured party. Absolute Liability covers Enterprise, Hazardous activity, and here Escape is not necessary. The scope of absolute liability is very broad. Example : Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case.
Key takeaways from Absolute Liability :
- Absolute liability undertakes all the possible damage, harm and consequences that can likely arise due to the conduction of any hazardous activity.
- The defendant has to pay the complete damage in case of mishappenings, even when there is no escape.
- The concept/rule of absolute liability arose after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
This article on Difference Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability 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.