PROJECT

REPORT
ON
NO FAULT LIABILITY:
STRICT LIABILITY
BY ISHAN UPADHAYA

COURSE: B.A.LL.B.(H) 2nd SEMESTER

ENROLLMENT NUMBER: A46011118010

AMITY UNIVERSITY PATNA (A.U.P.)

 Contents

1) No Fault Liability
1.1. Strict Liability
1.1.1. Introduction
1.1.2. Essentials
1.1.3. Defences
1.1.4. Position In India
 Foundation and Aim
This project is aimed at studying and exploring the extent of
tortious liability; namely strict liability, specifically in Indian law.
In doing so we shall study about the origins of strict liability with
the help of certain case laws foundational to this doctrine. We
shall study about the essentials of strict liability, its scope and
extent, defences available in cases regarding such wrongful acts
as well as its implementation and implications in Indian law.

The concept of liability in torts depends on the key rule that it is

wrongful to make hurt different people, regardless of whether
particular insurances are missing. In law, a person is said to be
lawfully at risk when she/he is legitimately in charge of
something – a result that has happened because of the
individual's activity or omission. This reason impact relationship
is vital for building up obligation, for without a reason or source
for the wrong, duty all in all can't be joined – the component of
'fault' is required to ascribe harm and claim remedy. The rule for
this situation lays on the possibility of foreseeability- of harm;
the individual who is the wellspring of harm is punished for
neglecting to deflect the sensibly predictable harm. For this
reason exactly we shall start this study report with exploration of
“THE NO FAULT LIABILITY” doctrine.
 NO FAULT LIABILITY
Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any
liability for the acts done by others. If an individual commits a fault, he is liable for
it. However, there is a principle which claims an individual liable without his being
at fault. This is the ‘no fault liability principle’. In this case, the liable person may
not have done any act of negligence or may have put in some positive efforts but
the rule claims him for the compensation. The ‘no fault liability principle’ is a
principle in which the defendant is held liable even if he is not directly or indirectly
responsible for the damages caused to the plaintiff. This is contradictory to the
general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held liable for
commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and
the defendant himself is unable to disprove it. In the cases that I will now mention,
the onus of being negligent can be ignored. In spite of all due care taken by the
defendant, he will invariably be held for the consequences of the damages caused
to any person outside of the boundary of the defendant’s land by any hazardous
thing that he maintained on the same stretch of land i.e. in spite of no intentional
or unintentional fault of his, the defendant can be held liable hence, explaining the
term ‘No Fault Liability’ This is the progenitor of the principle of strict liability as it
also shares the same application as the rule of strict liability and its is often used
interchangeably with the aforementioned principle.

A few instances where this rule is applicable:-

a) Activities involving non-natural use of land.
b) Activities involving dangerous operations such as blasting, mining, etc.
c) Liability arising out of keeping or taming dangerous animals.
d) Liability for dangerous structures e.g. building, ship, rail, etc.
e) Liability for dangerous chattels such as crackers, explosives, petrol, etc
 STRICT LIABILITY
The undertaking carrying on such risky and inalienably unsafe action for private
benefit has a social commitment to repay those torment along these lines, and it
should assimilate such misfortune as overhead; and, The endeavour alone has the
asset to find and shield against such perils and threats. The Court clarified its
situation in the accompanying words: "If the venture is allowed to bear on any
unsafe or naturally risky action for its benefit, the law must assume that such
authorization is contingent on the endeavour engrossing the cost of any mischance
emerging because of such perilous or innately hazardous action as a proper thing
of its overheads.1 Such is the idea behind strict liability. Strict Liability is the liability
in which the wrongdoer is liable to the acts for which he is not responsible. The need
for it was felt in the 19th century, to improve working and safety standards in factories.
The doctrine of Strict Liability has formed its foundation in the England’s case Rylands
v Fletcher [1868] 2.

Facts: Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Fletcher claimed a factory, for the vitality
motivations behind which he enlisted self employed entities and architects to develop a
water supply on his property. It so happened that there were old unused shafts under the
site of the repository which the architects neglected to notice and piece. Because of the
carelessness of the temporary workers, when water filled Fletcher's supply, the water
entered Rylands' coal mine and caused immense loss, for that is the place the poles drove.
In this manner, Ryland documented a suit against Fletcher. The respondent asserted that it
was the blame of the temporary workers', and the reason for harm was obscure to him.

Issues: The issue was extremely succinct – Can the litigant be held at risk, regardless of
whether it was the act of another person because of which an element on his territory got
away? It was remarkable in light of the fact that there was no carelessness or expectation on
part of the litigant.

Judgment: The House of Lords dismissed the supplication of the respondent and held him
at liable for every one of the damages to Rylands' mine. As per the rule set by this case, if a
man expedites his territory and keeps there any hazardous thing, a thing which is probably
going to do insidiousness on the off chance that it get away, he will be at first sight liable to
the harm caused by its escape despite the fact that he had not been careless in keeping it
there. Regardless of there being no blame or carelessness with respect to the litigant, he
was held at liable since he kept some unsafe thing on his territory and the said hazardous
thing has gotten away from his property and caused harm.

1 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PRINCIPLES OF ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY by A.BEULA

CHRISMAK DARIUS, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Volume 120 No. 5
2018
2 Citation(s): UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
 ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY 3
Certain qualifications were given to decide whether a liability is strict liability or not.
Only after these essential qualifications are satisfied, can a liability can be termed
as strict liability. These essentials, which are elucidated upon further on, are:

•Some unsafe thing more likely must be brought by a man on his land.

•The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.

•It must be non-natural use of land.

Dangerous Thing: This essentially implies the litigant will be at risk when the thing
that got away from his premises was a dangerous thing. The word 'dangerous' here
infers that it is probably going to do any kind of mischief in the event that it
escapes from the land. The gathered water in Fletcher's supply was the dangerous
thing in the previously mentioned case.

Escape: It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the
premises of the defendant, and it should not be within the reach of the defendant
once it escapes.

Non-Natural Use Of Land: For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special
use that brings with it increased danger to others. It must not be the ordinary use
of land or use as is proper for the general benefit of community

Exceptions to the Rule: The following exceptions to the rule have been
recognized by Rylands v. Fletcher and some other later cases:

 Plaintiff’s own default; when damage is caused to the plaintiff solely due to
his own fault, he shall receive no remedy in such cases.
 Act of God; For acts which are beyond human control and contemplation,
caused due to superior natural forces, the principle of strict liability does not
apply;
 Consent of the plaintiff; If the plaintiff gives his own consent for the
defendants actions. There is no common benefit to the defendant and the
plaintiff, as in the case of volenti non fit injuria. For example, if the plaintiff
and the defendant are neighbours and share the same water source on the

3 Bangia R.K. (2006), “The Law of Torts”, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad
 land of the defendant, if any damage is caused to the plaintiff due to that
collected water, the defendant won’t be liable. On the other hand, when a
festival is organized and the display of fireworks causes damages to the
crowd, the organizers will be liable since the display will not be deemed to
be conducted for the benefit of all.
 Act of third party; when damage is caused due to wrongful act committed by
a third party or any stranger over whom the defendant had no control, the
defendant will not be held liable under such circumstances.
 Statutory authority; If any act done under the authorization of the law/statute
like the government of a country or a state government causes any damage
to a person, it acts as a defence to an action for tort.

Position in India
The rule of strict liability is applicable as much in India as in England. There has,
however, been recognition of some deviation both ways, i.e., in the extension of the
scope of the rule of strict liability as well as the limitation of its scope. The liability
without fault has been recognized in case of motor vehicle accidents. Earlier the
Supreme Court had held in the Minu B. Mehta v. Balakrishna4 that the liability of the
owner or the insurer of the vehicle could not arise unless there was negligence on
the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1938
recognizes ‘liability without fault’ to a limited extent. According to Section 140 of
the 1988 Act, in case of the death of the victim, a fixed sum of Rs.50000 and in the
case of his permanent disability a sum of Rs.22000 can be claimed as compensation
without pleading or establishing any fault on the part of the owner or the driver of
the vehicle. The claim for compensation for the above mentioned fixed sum shall
not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the accident
victim, nor shall the compensation payable be reduced on account of any
responsibility in the accident of the accident victim. It implies that the defence of
contributory negligence cannot be pleaded in case of an action for no fault liability,

4 CITATION:
1977 AIR 1248 1977 SCR (2) 886
1977 SCC (2) 441
as mentioned above. If the claim exceeds the fixed sum of compensation as
mentioned above, the fault on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle, as
the case may be, has got to be established.

CONCLUSION
With the development of the scientific technology the need for the inherently
hazardous substance increasing, in order to meet the development program, but,
with this simultaneously the law of India is also indulging into the theory of the
“welfare state”. So to protect its people the court of India is more stringent &
rigorous in its approach to adopt the Strict Liability principle, comparatively to the
England. So, in a crime of strict liability (criminal) or absolute liability, a person
could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The principle of
strict liability clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his
premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and
causes damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side
of the person keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to
prove how he is not liable.

Bibliography
 ‘Law of Torts including Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and
Consumer Protection Laws’ textbook by Dr. R.K. Bangia (publisher-
Allahabad Law Agency).
 Cases have been referred from SCC OnLine and Manupatra (Legal Databases)
 www.legalindia.com
 Acapubl.eu
 indiankanoon.org
 A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PRINCIPLES OF ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY
by A.BEULA CHRISMAK DARIUS