Tort Law
Strict and Absolute Liability
Compare the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher with India’s absolute liability rule for hazardous enterprises, including escape, defences and remedies.
Quick answer
Strict liability under Rylands depends on dangerous accumulation, non-ordinary use and escape with recognised defences, while Indian absolute liability for hazardous enterprises removes those traditional exceptions.
Strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher
Strict liability removes the need to prove negligence, but it does not remove the need to prove the rule’s own ingredients.
Dangerous accumulation
The defendant must bring onto land and keep something likely to cause mischief if it escapes. Water in great volume, gas, electricity and toxic material are familiar examples.
Non-ordinary use
The use must create an exceptional danger rather than amount to an ordinary and appropriate use of the land in its context.
Escape
The dangerous thing must move from a place under the defendant’s occupation or control to a place outside it. Injury confined within the defendant’s premises may require another cause of action.
Recognised defences
Traditional defences include claimant fault, consent or common benefit, act of God, act of a stranger and statutory authority, depending on the facts and jurisdiction.
India’s rule of absolute liability
M.C. Mehta developed a rule suited to enterprises carrying on hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in Indian conditions.
Absolute and non-delegable duty
The enterprise must ensure that no harm results from the hazardous activity. If harm occurs, reasonable care and delegation to another person do not answer liability.
No Rylands exceptions
The traditional exceptions to strict liability are unavailable. The enterprise created the exceptional risk and is expected to absorb the cost of resulting harm.
Capacity-linked compensation
The measure of compensation should have a deterrent effect and can reflect the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, rather than treating serious industrial harm as a routine accident.
Statutory immediate relief
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 provides a separate no-fault mechanism for immediate relief after accidents involving hazardous substances. It does not erase broader rights to compensation.
Landmark cases
Learn the facts, the rule and the reason the case matters. The citation alone will not strengthen an answer.
Rylands v. Fletcher
(1868) LR 3 HL 330Facts: A landowner had a reservoir constructed over old mine workings. Water escaped through hidden shafts and flooded the claimant’s neighbouring mine.
Legal question: Can liability arise for escape of a dangerous accumulation even without proof that the landowner was personally negligent?
Held: A person who keeps a dangerous thing on land for a non-ordinary use may be liable when it escapes and causes foreseeable damage, despite absence of negligence.
Reasoning: A person who introduces an exceptional danger onto land must keep it there at their peril, subject to the rule’s requirements and recognised defences.
Use in an answer: Use it to set out accumulation, non-ordinary use, escape and the traditional defences.
Read the judgmentM.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1987) 1 SCC 395Facts: Oleum gas escaped from a hazardous industrial unit operating in a densely populated part of Delhi, causing death and injury.
Legal question: Should an enterprise carrying on hazardous activity receive the traditional exceptions available under strict liability?
Held: An enterprise engaged in hazardous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty, and the Rylands exceptions do not apply.
Reasoning: The Court imposed an absolute and non-delegable obligation because the enterprise creates exceptional risk and is best placed to prevent and absorb the resulting harm.
Use in an answer: Use it for the Indian rule of absolute liability and capacity-linked compensation.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
(1996) 3 SCC 212Facts: Chemical industries in and around Bichhri village discharged toxic material that contaminated soil and groundwater and harmed local residents.
Legal question: Does responsibility for hazardous pollution include the cost of restoring the damaged environment?
Held: Polluting industries were responsible not only for harm to affected people but also for the cost of restoring damaged soil and groundwater.
Reasoning: The polluter must bear both victim compensation and remediation costs. Environmental restoration is part of making good the harm caused by hazardous industrial activity.
Use in an answer: Use it to connect absolute liability with the polluter-pays principle and environmental remediation.
Read the judgmentHow to write this answer in an exam
- Identify the substance, activity and party controlling the risk.
- For Rylands, prove accumulation, non-ordinary use, escape and relevant damage.
- Test each pleaded defence under strict liability.
- If the enterprise is hazardous, apply M.C. Mehta and explain why Rylands exceptions are unavailable.
- Address compensation, statutory immediate relief and environmental restoration where relevant.
Quick revision
- Strict liability does not require proof of negligence.
- Rylands requires dangerous accumulation, non-ordinary use and escape.
- Traditional defences can answer strict liability.
- M.C. Mehta applies to hazardous or inherently dangerous enterprises.
- Absolute liability excludes the Rylands exceptions.
Test yourself
- Why is an injury inside the defendant’s premises difficult under Rylands?
- Which element distinguishes ordinary land use from exceptional danger?
- Why can a hazardous enterprise not rely on an act-of-a-stranger defence?
Frequently asked questions
Does strict liability mean liability for every accident?
No. The claimant must still prove the special ingredients of the rule and the defendant may rely on recognised defences.
Is the Public Liability Insurance Act the same as absolute liability?
No. The Act supplies statutory no-fault immediate relief for specified hazardous-substance accidents. Absolute liability is a broader judicial rule governing enterprise responsibility.