No-Fault Liability under Tort Law

This article has been written by Kritika Narwariya, a first year student of BALLB of THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN. In this article, the author has done the wide study of strict and absolute liability in light of no fault liability in tort law.

INTRODUCTION

There are situation when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same, or there is no intension to cause the harm, or sometimes may be he have made some positive efforts to avert the same. This liability is called as “no fault” liability.

No fault liability was primarily noted in Ryland v. Fletcher case, in which the house of lord declared “strict liability” as the no fault liability. It was noted in the case that the defendant could be held liable even though he had not done any fault but caused inconvenience to others. Principal of no-fault liability is evolved by Justice Blackburn in strict liability in this case.

Further in the case M.C. Mehta v. union of India, Supreme Court laid down the new rule of “absolute liability” in the preference to the rule of strict liability. Absolute liability is more rigorous form of the strict liability which made no option for defendant to escape the liability. Hence, it is also termed as “no fault” liability.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is a liability in which a person is legally responsible for the consequence of the act even in the absence of negligence or intention on the part of defendant.

It has following elements:

1. Dangerous Thing

SOME dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land. The dangerous thing could be anything which may cause mischief if it escaped from the defendant’s land. It includes polluted water supply, explosions, flag-pole, noxious fumes, vibrations, trees, sewage, rusty wires etc.

2. Escape

The thing brought to the land by the defendant must escape from the land of the defendant. This means that it is out of the control and occupation of the defendant.

If the dangerous thing does not escape from the defendant’s land then the defendant would not be responsible under strict liability.

The thing which escape must caused mischief to the plaintiff.

3. Non-Natural Use of Land

Non-natural use of land means when the dangerous thing has special use of land brings with it increased danger to others. However, if there is a natural use of land then the defendant could not be made liable.

However, there are some exceptions by which the defendant could avoid liability even though the act comes under strict liability.

Defenses of strict liability are as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s own Fault

When the plaintiff suffered damage by the interruption and the unusual sensitiveness of its own, then the defendant is not answerable for the same.

2. Act of God or Vis Major

When dangerous thins escape from the defendants land because of the supernatural forces without any human intervention, then the defence of act of god can be pleaded successfully.

3. Consent of the Plaintiff

This comes in the highlight when there is “common benefit” of both plaintiff and defendant. If some act is done for the common benefit then the escape of the dangerous thing would not make the defendant liable for the same. However, there is no common benefit for gas or other public utility and the defendant would be liable.

4. Act of Third Party

If any act was done by the stranger, other than the defendant or the plaintiff then the defendant is not answerable for the same. This is because the act of the stranger cannot be foreseen by the defendant. Hence, the remoteness of damage will arise.

5. Statutory Authority

Any act done under statute caused inconvenience to the plaintiff will be taken as a defence by the defendant. However, it should not include negligence on behalf of the defendant. Indian courts held that in respect of storing a large quantity of water for agriculture purposes, will not create liability to the defendant unless he is negligent of the act. Hence, this leads to an exception to the rule of strict liability. This is because storing of water is necessary for the welfare of society.

Rylands v. Fletcher

House of Lords

(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330

FACTS OF THE CASE

( NAME OF PARTIES AND WHAT HAPPENED FACTUALLY AND PROCEDURALLY )

Defendant got the reservoir constructed through the independent contractors, over his land for providing water to mills.

There were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractor failed to observe and so did not block them.

When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shaft and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land.

The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been.

Even though the defendant had not been negligent, he was held liable.

Issues Raised

( WHAT IS IN DISPUTE)

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Whether the negligent act of the independent contractor will not make the defendant liable?

Creating reservoir in that land in order to provide water to the mill will not account as non natural use of land?

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

There was no malice or intention to harm the plaintiff’s property.

How will the negligence of the independent contractor, who is not in total control, will create liability ?

RATIO DECIDENDI

( LEGAL REASONING – RULE OF LAW)

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

In strict liability, employer (defendant) is liable for the wrongful act of the defendant. Thus, due to the negligent act of the independent contractor, defendant was held liable. Also, in one of the case, it was held that defendant could not escape liability for the breach of duty by engaging an independent contractor.

If a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable for damage caused by its escape even though he had not been negligent in keeping it there. He will be held liable not because he is negligent but he kept dangerous thing in the land and termed as non natural use of land .since liability arises even without negligence on part of defendant, fall under strict liability.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENADANT

Malice do not play role in strict liability. If any dangerous thing placed on the land being non- natural and escape, caused inconvenience to others held liable for the same. Hence, water burst and destroyed the adjoining land would make the defendant liable for the same.

Independent contractor is an individual who performs on his own without any interference of the employer. He is not in total control of the employer. He is his own master. Also, he is assigned to do a certain work, but he is to exercise his own discretion as to the mode and manner of doing the act. He is bound by his act and not his employer’s orders.

JUDGEMENT

( APPLIED RULE OF LAW BY THE JUDGES )

It was decided by justice Blackburn J, who delivered the judgment of the court of exchequer chamber, and the house of lords, that to succeed in this tort the claimant must show:

That defendant brought something onto his land.
That the defendant made a “non natural use of his land”.
The thing was something likely to mischief if it is escaped.
The thing did escape and cause damage.

Hence, defendant liable under strict liability.

However, it was held that the defendant can escape liability by showing that escape was owing to plaintiff’s default; or due to vis major.

It was laid down in this case that in strict liability the employer is liable for the acts of the independent contractors.

Conclusion of the Case

A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequence of its escape.

Wrong of the independent contractor makes the employer liable though he is not in total control and guidance of the employer because the concept of negligence is irrelevant in the case of strict liability. This is because, in negligence, liability can be avoided by taking precautions. If enough precautions had been taken, then the defendant can be exempted from the liability. But on the other hand; in strict liability, even though enough precautionary measures were taken still it will make the employer liable.

Absolute Liability

Strict liability is more exaggerated in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India in the year 1990. It was observed that strict liability did not fully meet the needs of a modern industrial society where inherently dangerous activities are necessary to be carried on. This leads to many environments hazardous and creates the need to lay down the new rules regarding the same. If any industry or organization engaged in any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and as a result harm others on account of the execution of the activity, then it will be liable.

Absolute liability is absolute and non-delegatable, that means the defendant cannot escape from liability by showing that it has taken all reasonable care and there has been no negligence on its part. That means absolute liability is an exaggerated form of strict liability as it does not provide any exceptions to it.

Absolute liability was a need as many industries do hazardous work and they could be exempted from the liability by taking any defence if strict liability was continued. Absolute liability is associated with environmental hazard and at the time of any case of absolute liability, the court awards exemplary damages.

Case 01

Union Carbide Cooperation v. Union of India

CITATION:

1990 A.I.R. SC 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:

04/05/1989

BENCH:

Pathak , R.S. (CJ), Venkataramiah, E.S (J), Misra Rangnath, Venkatachalliah , M. N. (J), Ojha, N.D.(J).

PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT – Union Carbide Corporation

DEFENDANT/ RESPEONDENT – Union Of India and Ors

FACTS OF THE CASE

( NAME OF PARTIES AND WHAT HAPPENED FACTUALLY AND PROCEDURALLY )

union carbide India ltd (UCIL) was incorporated in India which manufacture chemicals, manufacture of pesticides, etc in Bhopal UCIL was subsidiary of UCC , a multinational company of USA .

In the year 1984, Methyl Iso- cyanate (MIC) got leake which leads to at least 3,000 deaths in Bhopal and serious injury to a large number of people. (estimated to over 6 lakhs people in Bhopal). It leads to many health losses to respiratory system, digestive system, affecting their eyes, damage to pregnant women and many other issues.

APPEALS

COURT OF USA

As many people were affected by the disaster and many filled writ petition under article 32 of Indian constitution. Also, as environment was affected leads to violation of article 21 as well. Also, UCIL was subsidiary of UCC, a multinational company of USA. So, First appeal was made in court of USA for relevant action.

DISTRICT COURT OF BHOPAL

After the refusal of appeal in USA, union of India filed a suit in district court of Bhopal.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

As huge amount of compensation was directed by the district court. So UCC made an appeal to Madhya Pradesh high court .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UCC were trying to draw a strategy with Indian government through their lawyers in India , as UCC may be abide to pat the huge compensation. UCC was directed to stay aside with such strategy but UCC also tried to negotiate with UOI for settling the dispute. Then the final appeal was made in Supreme Court of India

JUDGEMENT

(APPLIED RULE OF LAW BY THE JUDGES )

COURT OF USA

Appeal was rejected by the court.

DISTRICT COURT OF BHOPAL

The district and session judge of court, M W, Deo ordered the UCC to pay an interim relief of Rs 350 crore to the gas victim.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Petition of district court was revised in Madhya Pradesh high court. It was held by Mr. S.K. Seth to reduce the compensation from Rs 350 crore to Rs 250 crore.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

After 4 continuous year of litigation, supreme court on 14 and 15 february 1989 directed UCC to pay Rs 750 crores to the victim.

Supreme Court also held, to provide medical facilities to all the victims for period of 8 years, state government shall provide suitable land free of cost and UCC and UCII to bear the cost. Health insurance and life insurance was taken into consideration for about one Lakh people.

The Bhopal gas leak disaster (processing of claims) act, 1985 was passed in order to secure claims arising out of Bhopal gas leak disaster.

The Bhopal gas leak disaster(registration and processing of claims) act, 1985 was introduced by section 9 of the Bhopal gas leak disaster(processing of claims) act, 1985.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

As many people were affected by the leakage of the toxic gas. It was more rigorous form and couldn’t satisfy with strict liability. When any enterprise engaged in any hazardous activity, it has to undergo with many precautions and guidelines as to not affect the people by that hazardous act. Absolute liability was not intimidated in this case but there was a serious concern as many people were affected by the same. Provision of strict liability couldn’t satisfy the loss.

CASE 02

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

CITATION:

A.I.R. 1987 SC 965: (1987) 1 SCC 395

PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT – M. C. Mehta

DEFENDANT/ RESPEONDENT – Union Of India

FACTS OF THE CASE

( NAME OF PARTIES AND WHAT HAPPENED FACTUALLY AND PROCEDURALLY )

On 4 and 6^th december 1985 from one of the units of shriram food and fertilizers industries, oleum gas was leaked. Factory was situated in densely populated area of delhi.

As a consequence on advocate of Tis Hazari court died and many were affected.

M.C. Mehta one of the senior advocate, filed a PIL under article 21 and 32 of the constitution.

ISSUES RAISED

( WHAT IS IN DISPUTE)

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas?

What are the rules or provisions regarding the Liability and compensation of the hazardous act?

If such factories are allowed to work in such areas, what will be the mechanism regarding same?

Does rule of strict liability be justified in this kind of hazardous case?

Act caused out of the case do not affect the fundamental right in shrined under article 21 and 22 of Indian constitution.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

As act caused out of negligence, why can’t defenses exempt the defendant from the liability by following provisions of the strict liability?

RATIO DECIDENDI

( LEGAL REASONING – RULE OF LAW)

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

These acts could not be set aside as they play important role in needs of the people and the economy of the country. Permanent ban or closed down will create employment problems. However, there must be some protocol and mechanism to be followed by the factories.

Based on the harm caused to others and the magnitude must decide the liability and the compensation.

Some conditions or protocol must be followed are:

workers must use safety measures like masks, belts, etc.
central pollution central board to appoint as inspector to inspect the pollution standards .
some loudspeakers or visual technique should be used to look after the leakage of the gas.

As serious harm was caused not only to humans but animals and to the environment as well. If strict liability is taken into consideration, then factories may exempt from the liability by taking defenses and this may continue as long.

As many health issues were caused to the people and environment was also affected. This affect the living strarta and area for the humans, which

ON BEHALF OF DEFENADANT

As like the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, this case can also be set aside as there was no negligence on behalf, it was a mere accident. Defense could be allowed.

JUDGEMENT

( APPLIED RULE OF LAW BY THE JUDGES )

Supreme court held the defendant absolutely liable and directed shriram industries would deposit RS 20 lakhs for payment of compensation to the victims. Court held that strict liability couln’t be justified in this case as harm was caused beyond imagination.

CONCLUSION OF THE CASE

Soon after the Bhopal gas disaster, this was the second deadly case in India which took lives of several people to be leakage of hazardous oleum gas. Strict liability of the 19th century could not satisfy the deadly disaster. Some stagnant action is needed against the disaster against the environment and lives of the people. Hence, absolute liability was imparted to resolve these kinds of problems. As a result, absolute liability was introduced in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India.

CONCLUSION

After the case of M.C Mehta v. union of India, all liabilities affecting environment and people in large considered as absolute liable and cannot be exempted from liability by taking any defense. Hence, both strict and absolute liability termed as “no-fault liability”.