The concept of Strict liability in tort law is often known as “No-Fault Liability,” which may very clearly convey this concept “that obligation would exist irrespective of any fault”—in an understandable way. There are some activities that are intrinsically so risky that engaging in them places a responsibility on the participant to make up for any harm caused, regardless of negligence. The foreseeable danger associated with such acts is the justification for imposing such liability. The House of Lords used this principle for the first time in the Rylands v. Fletcher decision. Under this type of liability, even when there is no negligence or malicious intent on the part of the defendant, the person is nonetheless held legally liable for the results of their actions.

It is basically a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant) responsible for its actions, without the plaintiff having to prove the negligence or fault on the part of defendant. When any person involves in ultra hazardous activities such as keeping wild animals, using explosives or making defective products, then he/she may be held liable if any other person is injured because of that activity, even if the defendant took necessary precautions and followed safety requirement.

In Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 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 (responsibility)

Essentials for Strict Liability in Torts:

A. Dangerous thing

A person can be held “strictly liable” only in the cases where a dangerous substance escapes from their land. A dangerous substance is those which are likely to cause some harm or mischief if escape. In Rylands’ case, such dangerous thing was a large body of water. In various other torts cases vibrations, electricity, gas, sewage, explosives, rusty wires, etc were considered to be dangerous things.

B. Escape

It is also essential that such dangerous thing must escape from the premises of the defendant. In the case of Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5 where the branches of the poisonous tree were spread from defendant’s land to plaintiffs, it was held that such was escaped. Whereas in the case of Read v. Lyons & Co (1947) A.C. 156., where an employee suffered an injury due to an explosion in a shell manufacturing company, it was held such could not be covered under strict liability principle as nothing escaped from the defendant’s premises.

C. Damage

There must be damage suffered by the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the dangerous thing that escaped. In the case of Weller v. Foot and Mouth Disease Institute 1966) 1 QB 569., where the defendant went out of business due to the Government’s action of closing cattle market, it was held to be sufficient damage.

D. Non-Natural use of land

In the case of Richard v. Lothian (1913) AC 263., Lord Multon defined non-natural use of land as “some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely the ordinary use of the land or such a use as it proper for the general benefit for the community”.

EXCEPTIONS OF STRICT LIABILITY

1- Consent of the Plaintiff:- When the plaintiff has either expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of a source of danger and also there has been no negligence on the defendant’s part, the defendant will not be held liable. It is basically the defense of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ taken by the defendant in the court.

2- 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. In the case of Ponting v. Noakes 1894-2 Q. B. 281 where the horse of the plaintiff died after nibbling on leaves of the poisonous tree in the defendant’s land. It was held that such was due to the plaintiff’s own fault as such a tree had not reached the plaintiff’s land

3- Act of Stranger: 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. In the case of Rickards v. Lothian [1913] AC 263 where some strangers blocked the water pipeline, which is usually in control of the defendant. Such blockage resulted in an explosion which eventually causes damage to the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant can’t be made liable as it was due to the act of a third party which was not in control of the defendant.

4- Act of God or Vis Major: For acts which are beyond human control and contemplation, caused due to superior natural forces, the principle of strict liability does not apply.

5- Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant: Where the act or escape of the dangerous thing was for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff, the defendant will not be held liable. 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.

6- 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 defense to an action for tort.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 loopholes that eventually aid the defendant in disassociating themselves from their obligation, 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.