The Strict Liability principle is also called as ‘No Fault Liability’. 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. There are situations when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same, or there is no intention to cause the harm, or sometimes he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words, sometimes the law recognizes ‘NO FAULT’ liability. In this connection, the rules laid down in the decision of the House of Lords in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER (1868) L R 3 H.L. 330.

Rylands v. Fletcher case , the defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent contractor. There were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on adjoining land. The defendant did not know about the shaft and had not been negligent, but he was held liable. This is also called the No fault’ liability. In the given case, the liability recognized was ‘strict liability’ i.e. even if the defendant was not negligent or did not cause any intentional harm; he could still be liable under the rule Court held defendant liable even though there was no negligence on the part of defendant Justice Blackburn formulated the rule –If any person brings keeps any collects any thing on his land which is not naturally there, if the thing escaped then he shall be liable for the consequences. It may not be even his fault in escape of that thing. He must keep the thing at his own peril.

Essentials:

1. Dangerous Things

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one’s land arises only when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing was large water body (reservoir). The rule is also applied to gas, electricity, vibration, sewage, explosive, etc.

2. Escape

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant. The case of Read v. Lyons and Co, is an example of no escape and hence no liability. In this case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory, while she was performing her duties inside the defendant’s premises, a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded and she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. It was held that the defendant was not liable because there was no escape of thing outside the defendant’s premises. So, the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this case.

3. Non-natural Use of Land

There should be non-natural usage of land to make the defendant liable. Like in Rylands v. Fletcher case, collecting large body of water is considered to be non-natural use of land. In Sochacki v. Sas, it has been held that having a fire place is natural use of land. Even if there is escape of fire from the fire place and the plaintiff suffers harm, the defendants were not held liable as there was no non-natural use of land

Exceptions to Strict Liability

The strict liability rule does not apply in cases involving the following exceptions:

1) Act of God

An act of God is a sudden, direct and irresistible act of nature that nobody can reasonably prepare for. It can cause damage regardless of how many precautions one may take. For example, tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, extraordinary rainfall, etc. are acts of God. Any damage that occurs due to these acts does not attract strict liability.

2) Wrongful act of a third party

Sometimes, the involvement of third parties may be the cause of damages. For example, renovation work in one flat may cause some nuisance to another flat. Here, the tenant affected by the nuisance cannot sue his landlord. He can only sue the person renovating the other flat.

3) Plaintiff’s own fault

In several instances, the plaintiff may himself be at fault for the damage he suffers. In such cases, he cannot shift liability on some other person regardless of how much he suffers.

4) Common Benefit

Where the source of danger is maintained for the common benefit of both plaintiff and defendant, strict liability in torts would not be applicable. In the case of Box v. Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76 where the defendant’s reservoir got overflowed partly due to the plaintiff’s reservoir and partly because of the defendant’s act. It was held defendant can’t be made liable because such reservoirs were installed for the common benefit of both the party.

C) Consent of the claimant

This is basically a defense of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ where the plaintiff has either explicitly or impliedly consented for the presence of such dangerous thing.

D) Statutory authority

If a particular act is done under authorization of a law or statute, for example, an act done by the government agencies, such an act cannot be made strictly liable. In Green v. Chelsea waterworks co (1894) 70 L.T. 547.,where the defendant’s company was engaged to maintain a continuous water supply under statutory authority, it was held that bursting of such water supplies was without any defendant’s fault and statutory protection would be granted.

Conclusion:

Due of preexisting exceptions that eventually assist the defendant in disassociating themselves from their liability, the concept of strict liability in torts is frequently questioned. But, we need also take into account the fact that this rule is an exception in and of itself. Only when someone is at fault can they be held accountable. Nonetheless, this theory enables us to hold someone accountable even in the absence of blame.