Note on absolute liability

 Write critical note on Principle of absolute liability under the Law of Torts.

Write note on rule of absolute liability

Discuss “Rule of Absolute Liability” as laid by the Supreme Court of India in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987SC 1086.

As discussed above the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purposes being on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he falls to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person’s willful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused.

Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority.

The rule of absolute liability has been evolved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987SC 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case). In this case, Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industry was producing caustic and chlorine. On December 4th and 6th 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilizers Limited in the heart of the capital city of Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons.

The leakage was caused by a series of mechanical and human errors. This matter was brought as a PIL before Supreme Court. The Court observed that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.

The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.

Further, the court said that in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry out part of the developmental programme.

This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure.

Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static.

New principles have to be laid down which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country.

This rule is also known as no-fault liability as the exceptions available in case of strict liability do not apply here.

The steps taken by judiciary has been furthered by Indian Legislature by enacting the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 wherein the stress is on providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring while handling any hazardous substances for matters connected with the incident.

It has the purpose of providing public liability insurance. It provides that every owner who works with hazardous substances and hires employees to control those dangerous things, shall have policies and insurances where he will be insured against liability to give relief in case of death or injury to a person or damage to property arising from the accident caused while carrying on the hazardous activities.