Meaning of absolute liability.

A deliberate intention or guilty mind should be present when a person commits a crime, then only he can be convicted. But in the case of strict and absolute liability, a person can be held guilty even without a guilty intention. In the case of strict liability, “mistake of fact” can be taken as defense and in the case of absolute liability “mistake of fact” cannot be taken as a defense. Absolute liability includes the offenses in which a person cannot take a defense of “mistake of fact”. In other words, liability without any excuse is called an absolute liability. Justice Golden held that absolute liability extends proximately caused damages.

Meaning of strict liability

In certain cases, a person can be held responsible even if he acts without negligence. Such liability imposed on a person is called strict liability. An example of such liability is the case of the animal bite. According to the law of torts, strict liability is the basic conviction of a person without finding negligence on his part. The only burden to impose such liability lies on the claimant in proving that the incident actually occurred and the law automatically holds the defendant liable. The principle of strict liability evolved to discourage negligent behavior and expedite court judgments. In a nutshell, in the case of strict liabilities, the victim is allowed to have compensation even if all mandatory precautions have been taken by the defendant and the defendant is held responsible only because of the occurrence of the injury.

There are certain exceptions recognized for the application of the rule of strict liability-

Act of God

Plaintiff’s consent

Plaintiff’s fault

Statutory authority

Act of the third party

Man performs so many activities which are dangerous to the person and property of others. The state allows them on the condition that it may allow them to be tolerated on condition that they pay their ways regardless of any fault. The doers of the activities have to compensate for the damage caused irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the magnitude of risk which is foreseeable. The case of Ryland’s v Fletcher was decided in 1868 for the first time laid down the rule of absolute liability according to which the plaintiff is not required to prove negligence, lack of care, or wrongful intention on the part of the defendant.

Facts of the Landmark Judgement Fletcher V. Ryland’s-

Fletcher was working a coal mine under a lease. On the neighboring land, Ryland’s desired to erect a reservoir for storing water and for this purpose is employed a competent independent contractor who is workmen, while excavating the soil, discovered some disused shafts and passages communicating with old working and the mine in adjoining land. The shafts and passages had been filled with loose Earth rubbish. The contractor did not take the trouble to pack the shafts and passages with earth to bear the pressure of water in the reservoir when filled. Shortly after the construction of the reservoir even when it was partly filled with water, the vertical shafts give way and burst downwards. The consequence was that the water flooded the old passages and also the plaintiff’s mine. The plaintiff sued for damages. No negligence on the part of the defendant was proved. The only question was whether the defendant would be liable for the negligence of the independent contractor who is admittedly a competent engineer. It was held that the question of negligence was quite immaterial. The defendant in bringing water into the reservoir was bound to keep it there at his peril and was therefore liable.

Rules laid down in the case-

Justice Blackburn laid down that the person brings on his land anything likely to do mischief for his purpose must keep it at his peril and if he fails to do so it would be considered a prima-facie liability for him. However, in the House of lords, lord Cairns added one more element. He said that the use of and by the defendant should be non-natural. And he said that in the instant case the defendant was using the learned in a non-natural way.

Applications of the rule-

The above rule the enunciated in an action of a nuisance as between two adjacent landowners has become in course of time a general principle applicable in all cases where, apart from negligence, the defendant makes hazardous use of his property, and as a result, the plaintiff sustains damages. But the rule is confined itself to hazardous things. The rule now governs the liability for fire. Do the case of Ireland v Fletcher was a case of water escaping to adjacent lands, the principle of liability is not confined to escape of water, but has been extended to anything and everything which tends to escape and cause mischief. For instance, dangerous animals, petrol, electricity, explosives, poison, fire, sewage everything that tends to escape and cosmetics may become the subject matter for the application of the rule.

Limitation to the application of the rule-

Escape-liability will only be imposed if there is an escape of the object from the land of which the defendant is in occupation or control. Again, the choice of the epithet is not entirely happy with this there is no need for the object to animate, but essential point is that starting on the defendants land, that thing must do it is damaged beyond the confines of it, if the damage is within the defendant’s foundries the rule cannot apply the, of course, they may be some other grounds of liabilities, as negligence. and another thing that must be approved by the plaintiff is that the damage was the natural consequence of the escape.

Things likely to do mischief- whether something kept by the defendant on his land, for his purpose, is likely to do mischief if it escapes is a question of fact in every case. Therefore, one particular thing we come within the rule in one case but not in another.

Non-natural uses- when the case of Ryland’s v Fletcher came before the house of Lawrence and important qualification was made to justice Blackburn principle. It was held that the use must be non-natural. The difficulty lies in the determination of what is or what is not a natural or ordinary use of the land. Thus, Ryland’s case decided that it is not possible to construct a reservoir for water for a mill, and it is not natural to-

• Accumulating large quantities of gas in pipes
• To have electricity wiring on-premises
• To keep a domestic water supply for ordinary purposes
• To light a fire in a grate
• To burn paper in a chimney to test a flue
• To operate an explosive factory in time of war.

The rule of absolute liability is not applicable when the damage done by the escape of things brought or kept up on his promises by the defendant is due to the following circumstances-Things naturally on land-the rule applies to dangerous things artificially brought are collected on the land by the occupier or owner, but not to things which grow or are collected on the land naturally. For example, a person is not liable for the escape of thistle seeds, when the thistle has grown naturally on his land, water getting accumulated by natural causes, the defendant will not be liable if he had done nothing to cause it to accumulate and has taken no active means to direct it’s escaping on another’s land, but if there is threatened to flood, the defendant can take suitable steps to direct the flow on another’s land but if flood water collects on his land going to artificial erection thereon he may not turn it off on to that of his neighbor.

The conditions where the rules of liability do not apply-

1. This rule does not apply when the escape is due to artificial works maintained with the plant its consent and for the common benefit of the defendant. (Consent of the plaintiff)
2. The rule does not apply where the escape is due to the plaintiff’s default. Similarly, where the plaintiff was the trespasser or knowingly brought the risk upon himself, or were but for natural use by the plaintiff of his property, the escape could not have caused damage the defendant will not be liable under the rule. (Default of the plaintiff)
3. Where escape is caused by the wrongful act of a third party over whom the defendant has no control, he is not liable for the action of the third party in the absence of his negligence. (Act of strangers)
4. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not apply when the escape is due to vis major or the operation of some superior force beyond reasonable expectation of human control. (Act of God)
5. The rule does not apply where the defendant is empowered or authorized or required under the law of accumulate, people collect the dangerous things which escape or cause mischief and injury to the plaintiff. Persons empowered by the statute to bring or keep on their land dangerous substances are not liable in the absence of negligence or an express provision the start youth to the country for damages caused by its escape. (Statutory authority)
6. The rule is applied to a case where the artificial work, which causes damage to the plaintiff, was maintained for the common benefit and in the common interest of the plaintiff and the defendant. No action would lie in the case of the ordinary use of land or such use as is proper for the general benefit of the community. (Common benefit of interest).