A Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Strict Liability as per Tort Law

Abstract

Strict liability is a legal concept that enforces accountability on an individual or entity for the outcomes of their act, irrespective of their intention or degree of negligence. This holds that a defendant can be held responsible for any injury done, even if they have taken all the necessary precautions to avert it. Strict liability primarily finds application in tort law but can also be observed in criminal law.

In contrast to the standard negligence rule, where an individual can avoid liability by demonstrating their lack of negligence, this exemption does not hold in cases of strict liability. In strict liability cases, the concept of mens rea (guilty mind) is partially or entirely disregarded, and the defense of a mistake of fact is also inapplicable. These instances involve liability without the requirement to prove fault.

Despite the prevailing prevalence of fault-based liability, Indian tort law incorporates limited principles of strict liability concerning personal injuries. Some of these principles are rooted in common law traditions, while others, such as compensation for personal injuries resulting from electricity supply, nuclear facilities, environmental pollution, fires, gas leaks, explosions, oil spills, noxious fumes, vibrations, and more, have emerged through contemporary statutory regulations.

Keywords: Strict Liability, non-natural, escape, hazardous, injury, mischief, negligence, intent

Introduction

In the realm of law, "liability" is a multifaceted concept encompassing obligations, duties, responsibilities, and the repercussions of deliberate acts, duty breaches, or statutory violations. Legal liability often attaches to an individual when they are legally responsible for a situation resulting from their actions or omissions. Notably, there are instances where one may bear liability even in the absence of negligence, intent, or proactive preventive measures - a concept often referred to as "no-fault liability.”

The Doctrine of Strict Liability finds its origins in the landmark case of "Rylands v. Fletcher." In this pivotal case, Justice Blackburn introduced a groundbreaking principle of liability, which was subsequently endorsed by the House of Lords. He articulated: "We think that the rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril; if he does not do so is prima facie answerable to all damages which is the natural consequence of its escape. "

This firmly instituted the notion that even without intent and the defendant being negligent, they are still strictly liable to compensate for any damages incurred. In matters of strict liability, the requirement for negligence or mens rea is either partially or entirely set aside, and the defense of a mistake of fact is not applicable. It is rooted in the legal maxim: "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" (use your property in such a way as not to harm the property of others.

Review of Literature

"Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes" - Laurie L. Levenson:

She underscores that strict liability obviates the need to establish criminal intent, facilitating the prosecution's task of proving guilt. This doctrine, she posits, provides a potent and nearly certain avenue for convicting defendants.

2. "Justification for a Doctrine of Strict Liability" - Stephen Cohen:

He contends that strict liability imposes responsibility for actions beyond an individual's control, characterizing it as a surrogate for negligence or carelessness. This doctrine, he asserts, mandates liability even when exhaustive precautions have been taken to prevent mishaps.

3. "The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability,"

In the realm of legal discourse, the demarcation between strict liability and fault-based liability often appears enigmatic. Distinguished legal scholars, such as John C.P. Goldberg and Benjamin C. Zipursky, have earnestly endeavored to unravel this distinction. They elucidate that strict liability entails holding an individual accountable for harm, irrespective of their lack of wrongdoing, whereas fault-based liability hinges on the culpability of the defendant.

Research Methodology

The research methodology employed in this paper is the Doctrinal Research Methodology. This approach has been specifically chosen by the researcher due to its focus on systematically gathering and organizing pertinent information from different sources, which is central to the objectives of this research. This methodology views law as a compilation of principles that can be comprehended and analyzed through legal doctrines. The researcher intends to explore various facets of strict liability by drawing upon resources such as digests, legal directories, research papers, precedents, legal statutes, case laws, legal articles, and other legal references. It is a socio- legal research which is solely reliant on the sources and does not encompass any qualitative or quantitative research methods. Additionally, it encompasses legal doctrines, constitutional doctrines, international doctrines, and more.

Essentials

1. Dangerous Thing: A thing, whether living or inanimate, is considered dangerous if it can cause injury to others if it escapes from the defendant's land. The landowner becomes strictly liable to compensate for any damages caused by this dangerous thing. It is worth noting that even a seemingly non-dangerous item can be classified as dangerous if it is present in large quantities, as seen in the “Rylands v. Fletcher” case where an excess of water was deemed dangerous.

2. Non-natural Use of Land: In the context of Strict Liability, non-natural use of land is a crucial factor. This means that “it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use is proper for the general benefit of the community.” The defendant must introduce or maintain something on their property that was not naturally present. This "something" can be animate or inanimate, even if it is not easily apparent. For instance, planting a regular tree is a natural use of land, but cultivating a fatal tree would constitute a non-natural use. In the case of "Sochacki v. Sas” the defendant, a tenant in the plaintiff's residence, ignited a fire in the fireplace and briefly left the room unattended. A spark from the fire ignited a blaze that engulfed the entire house. It was determined that since the fire had been started in the plaintiff's own fireplace, it was not a non-natural use of the land.

3. Escape of the Dangerous Thing: Another crucial requirement for the application of the “Rylands v. Fletcher” rule is that the dangerous thing causing injury must escape from the defendant's property and be beyond their control. In the case of "Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board," for example, where the branches of a poisonous yew tree extended beyond the defendant's property, encroaching onto the neighbor's land. Tragically, this resulted in the death of the neighbor's horse after he chewed on those leaves. The court found the defendant liable because the poisonous tree's branches had escaped from their land and caused harm to others.

Rylands v. Fletcher

Facts- The defendant sought to improve the water supply for his mill. The plaintiff and the defendant owned adjacent properties, with the plaintiff operating a coal mine beneath his land. The defendant constructed a reservoir on his property, intending to fill it with water. Unbeknownst to him, there was a disused mine shaft beneath the reservoir site. As a result, water from the reservoir entered the plaintiff's mine through this shaft, causing substantial loss. Importantly, the defendant's actions were entirely innocent, and he had no reason to know about or suspect the existence of the disused mine shaft. Despite the absence of negligence, he was held liable because it was clarified that using water for domestic needs is natural, but collecting it extensively in reservoirs is considered non-natural.

Issue - The main issue was whether Rylands could be deemed responsible for the harm inflicted on Fletcher's coal mines from the accidental release of water from his reservoir, even in the absence of negligence.

Judgement- The essence of the judgment in “Rylands v. Fletcher” lies in the idea that when an individual is harmed through no fault of their own, it is reasonable and just for a neighbor who brings something onto their property (in this case, a reservoir that did not naturally exist) – which is harmless as long as it remains within their property but is recognized as potentially harmful if it crosses onto the neighbour's property – to be responsible for the resulting damage if they fail to confine it to their own land.

Defences

1. Act of God: “An act of God refers to an event that arises directly and exclusively from natural causes that could not have been prevented through foresight or caution”. These are circumstances that human foresight cannot anticipate. If the escape of a dangerous element was unforeseen and due to supernatural forces without human intervention, the defense of an act of God can be invoked. In "Nichols v. Marsland," the defendant had been maintaining an artificial lake created from a natural stream for an extended period. However, due to an exceptionally heavy rainfall event that had not occurred previously, the artificial lake burst, damaging four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. In the present case, the defendant was not held liable because there was no negligence on their part, and the damage resulted from an act of God that was beyond human control.

2. Act of a Third Party: This defense shields a defendant from strict liability when damages result from the actions of an unrelated party who is neither an employee nor under the defendant's control. Furthermore, the damages incurred due to the third party's actions must not have been foreseeable or expected. In "Rickards v. Lothian," strangers obstructed the defendant's waste pipes, leading to water overflow into the plaintiff's property and damaging their belongings. The defendant was not held responsible because the damage was caused due to an outsider's actions, and it could not have been predicted.

However, if the defendant could foresee the actions of the third party and if preventive measures could have averted the ensuing damage, the defendant is obligated to take precautions. Failure to do it renders the defendant liable. In the case of "M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar," a live electric wire was snapped on a partially wet road, leading to a cyclist unintentionally encountering it and suffering electrocution. Strict liability was applied in this instance because the Electricity Board had a statutory duty to provide electricity and should have anticipated the consequences, implementing measures to prevent similar accidents. The defense of "act of third party" was not accepted.

3. Plaintiff's Own Fault: If the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff is a result of their own actions or fault, they cannot claim damages. In "Ponting v. Noakes," the plaintiff's horse ventured onto the defendant's property and ingested poisonous leaves from a plant located there, tragically resulting in the horse's demise. The defendant was not held liable because the damage would not have occurred if the horse had not intruded onto the defendant's land. In this case, "Rylands v. Fletcher" did not apply as there was no escape of the poisonous leaves.

4.Statutory Authority: This is invoked when an action is carried out under the authority of a statute and results in harm to another party. In "Green v. Chelsea Co.," the defendant's company had obtained statutory authorization for continuous water supply. When a main belonging to the company unexpectedly burst, causing flooding in the plaintiff's property without any negligence, the defendant's company was absolved of liability due to the statutory authority. However, this defense does not apply if the defendant acting under statutory authority was negligent.

5. Consent of the Plaintiff: This defense applies when the plaintiff has given express or implied consent for the action that resulted in injury or harm. Implied consent is typically recognized when the source of danger is for the "common benefit" of both the plaintiff and the defendant. In the case of “Carstairs v. Taylor”, where the plaintiff rented the ground floor of a building from the defendant, and water stored on the upper floor leaked without any negligence on the defendant's part, injuring the plaintiff's goods. The defendant was not held liable because both plaintiff and defendant benefitted from water storage.

However, the defense of consent does not apply in situations such as the display of fireworks during a festival, as it is not considered to be conducted for the common benefit of everyone present. If explosives from the fireworks display escape into the crowd and cause damage, the organizers can still be held liable.

Conclusion

Strict liability is a doctrine that dates to the Ryland vs. Fletcher case nearly 150 years ago. Since then, the doctrine has evolved with different types of cases and exceptions. Strict liability holds an individual liable for damages irrespective of whether there was negligence on their part or not. Mens rea does not matter in strict liability cases; an individual will be held liable even if they did not have criminal intent. Actus reus alone is enough for the defendant to be held liable for damages. This doctrine has also been used by the Indian courts to determine the need, proportionality, and amount of compensation for damages suffered by a plaintiff. This does not prevent an individual from getting a fair trial; the burden of proof is on the defense to prove that they are not liable. Because strict liability penalizes an individual without fault, it is seen as a potentially dangerous tool that must be used judiciously and impartially.

Suggestions

Strict liability puts the defendant in a defenseless position. It is possible for the plaintiff to use this doctrine to bully the defendant into paying damages. For strict liability, a negligence or foreseeability-ability test must be used to determine whether the harm could have been foreseeable and whether the defendant acted with due care. When deciding on strict liability cases, courts should not only look at the plaintiff’s point of view, but also at the point of view of the defendant to avoid punishing the defendant even after due care. If the defendant acted with extreme care to prevent any harm to others, and did not act with negligence, the courts should be more lenient and relax the punishment.

References

Fletcher v. Rylands, 1 LR Ex 265, 279 (1866)
Laurie L. Levenson, Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes, 78 Cornell L. Rev. 401 (1992- 1993)
Stephen Cohen, Justification for a Doctrine of Strict Liability, 8 Social Theory and Practice, pp. 213-229 (1982)
John C.P. Goldberg and Benjamin C. Zipursky, The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 743 (2016)
Rickards v. Lothian, (1913) A.C. 263
Sochacki v. Sas 1 All E.R. 344(1947)
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board 4 Ex. D 5 (1878)
Nichols v. Marsland 2 Ex D 1(1876)
M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar 1 MPLJ 531
Ponting v. Noakes 2 QB 281 (1849)
Green v. Chelsea Co. 70 LT 547 (1894)
Carstairs v. Taylor L.R. 6 Ex. 217 (1871)
T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian, (1967) 2 KER 541