When the plaintiff’s legal rights are violated as a result of the defendant’s error. So, the defendant is responsible for making restitution; this is a duty based on fault. Nonetheless, even in those situations where the defendant is not at fault for the plaintiff’s right breach, the defendant is still obligated to compensate the plaintiff.

In short, liability arising without any fault is a no-fault liability. It covers two kinds of liability:

• Strict Liability
• Absolute Liability

Definition: If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties.

when a company that seeks to make money participates in an activity that is intrinsically bad and harms someone as a result of the conduct of that activity. The defendants, or the company’s owners, would then be totally responsible for the loss and would not be entitled to any defences or exclusions. So, they have to pay compensation to the aggrieved party. Further, the undertaking will be liable for all possible damages or consequences arising out of that activities.

Supreme Court created the doctrine of absolute liability, in preference to the doctrine of strict liability. This decision was made by the court after two major gas leaks:

• Escape of Methyl Isocyanate from Union Carbide Plant – Bhopal Gas Tragedy
• Leakage of Oleum Gas from one of the units of Sriram Food and Fertilizers Industries

due to the fact that the first tragedy seriously injured thousands of people. Because of the exceptions under strict liability, the Supreme Court of India was concerned that businesses that deal with dangerous materials would be exempt from being held responsible for harms caused by the release of lethal gases. The concept of absolute liability was created as a result.

Essential Elements of Absolute Liability-

1. Dangerous Thing- The owner will only be held responsible if something hazardous has escaped from their property. Furthermore, if it escapes, the object has a high probability of causing harm and may do so to anyone or their property. A vast pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, smells, rusty wires, and other things have all been deemed dangerous in various strict liability judgements.

2. Escape– Absolute culpability applies to any harmful item that escaped the defendant’s control and harmed the plaintiff’s property or caused injury to any person. About Read v. Lyons and Co.[1947] AC 156. The plaintiff in this case worked for the defendant’s manufacturing business. She was severely injured when a manufactured object exploded while she was performing her duty. The plaintiff was performing her task when the accident happened, according to the court, and it happened while she was on the job. According to the ruling, the defendant cannot avoid his responsibility and the strict liability concept is not relevant in this situation. The offender was found accountable.

3. Non-Natural use of land– Domestic water collecting is not seen as a non-natural use of land, but it is when done in large numbers, such in a reservoir. In the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, it was decided that the extensive collection of water is an unnatural use of land. By taking into account the environment, society, and what a reasonable person would do, one can distinguish between a natural and non-natural use of land. On one’s property, growing trees is seen as a natural use of the land; nevertheless, if one starts to plant poisonous trees, this is regarded as a non-natural use of the land.

4. Mischief- According to this theory, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant engaged in non-natural land use and avoided a dangerous situation that existed on his property and caused additional harm. Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3 KB 772 is the case at hand. Water delivery duties were given to the defendant at several locations. The pipeline bursts at various locations because the defendant failed to maintain the minimum pressure that was demanded of him. The plaintiff sustained severe damages as a result. Despite not being at fault in this instance, the defendant was nevertheless held accountable.

Scope of Absolute Liability

The principle of absolute liability is typically seen as a legal exception. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was introduced as a result of the tragic Oleum gas leak event. Its goal was to provide compensation to the victims of incidents involving dangerous chemicals or their handling. The primary goal of the legislation was to establish a public liability insurance fund that would thereafter be utilised to recompense the victims.

Key Differences Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

The pointers given below will provide you with the difference between strict liability and absolute liability:

1. When the court holds one party accountable for damages, even when such losses were not intentionally or negligently caused by another party, this is known as strict liability. Yet, the court deems the employer liable for paying benefits that are outlined in labour law when a worker sustains an accident while engaging in some activity while employed. Here, it doesn’t matter if the harm was brought on by the employee, a coworker, or an employer-related action. The employer is often responsible for paying the debt. We refer to this as absolute liability.
2. There are several defences available for strict liability offences. Absolute culpability imposes a high level of criminal duty, although the perpetrator will be found guilty in the majority of instances.
3. While strict liability is applicable to persons, absolute liability is applicable to enterprises, i.e. commercial undertakings.
4. In the case of strict liability, the escape of hazardous or dangerous components from the perimeter of the owner is necessary. But escape is not necessary in the case of absolute liability.
5. The defendant in a strict liability case has a few defences at his or her disposal to shield themselves from responsibility. But when it comes to the defendant’s total liability, there are no exceptions offered. This implies that the defendant would have whole responsibility for any losses that any person suffered as a result of the hazardous element.

Reimbursement:

In cases of strict liability, compensation is paid in accordance with the type and extent of the losses sustained. But, where there is absolute accountability, the compensation is more of a deterrence. Because industrial accidents frequently result in large numbers of fatalities as well as the loss of property and the environment, the amount decided must be more than the damage incurred. This suggests that the size and financial capacity of the organisation determine the extent of the harm.

Conclusion:

Absolute Liability (based on no-fault liability )evolved in India in the MC Mehta Vs. Union of India  Case which is also known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case. The judgement of the case came at a time when the country was coming to terms with the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Under the theory of absolute liability, it is believed that when someone is at fault, they violate the law. Unlimited liability is contrary to the idea of natural justice, which holds that everyone has a right to a strong defence. It can hold anyone responsible even if they are not at fault or have no defence. Absolute liability is comparable to strict liability, with the caveat that because it has no exceptions, it guards against taking advantage of and treating the injured party cruelly. Since the law of strict liability, which was created more than 200 years earlier, cannot be used as the main tenet to explain reimbursement because it was created at a time when technical progress was still in its infancy as opposed to today’s overall development, there was an urgent and intrinsic need for such a theory.