Strict Liability: Concept, Essentials & Exception

 Strict Liability: Concept, Essentials & Exception

Introduction:

The Strict Liability principle is an extremely important concept under law of torts. Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people pay compensation for damage even if they are not at fault.

In other words, people have to pay compensation to victims even if they took all the necessary precautions.

The rule of strict liability originates from the famous English case of Rylands V. Fletcher.

In the case of Rylands V. Fletcher (1868) Facts of the case:

Rylands had mines and Fletcher had mills. Fletcher had appointed independent contractor for building the reservoir, while making the reservoir they saw that there are many mine shafts, they did not covered nor paid attention. Because of this water flowed down to Rylands mine and he faced heavy loss.

Rylands sued Fletcher. Fletcher gave the defence that whatever the mistake was, that was done by independent contractor and engineers, it was not his fault.

Held:

House of Lords held that whatever loses were faced by Rylands, the whole liability will be faced by Fletcher.

Here the concept of strict liability evolved.

Essentials of Strict Liability:

Some dangerous things must have been kept and brought on his land

There should be an escape of that dangerous thing

It must be of non natural use of land

Only when these all 3 are there then only the person will be held liable.

In the case of Read V. Iyons and Company, Facts of the case:

Read was an employee and Iyons and Company was a weapon company. While she was performing the duty one shell exploded and caused her injury. There was no negligence found and there was no escape. So the company was not held liable.

Exceptions to Strict Liability:

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

Plaintiffs own Fault:

When the plaintiff is the person who had done the wrong at the first place.

In the case of Pointing V. Noakes (1849) Facts of the case:

There was two neighbours Pointing had dangerous trees planted in his garden. Noakes horse went and ate dangerous plants and the horse died. So Noakes sued Pointing, but here there was no escape of dangerous things so Pointing was not held liable.

Act of God:

Unexceptional things due to nature

In the case of Nicolas V. Marshland 

Facts of the case:

Due to extraordinary heavy rainfall the water from artificial lake of Nicholas went to the land of Marshland and because of this all the wall broke. It was unpredictable and there was no control so here the exception of Act of God can be used.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria: 

Plaintiffs own consent to the defendant

In the case of Car Stair V. Taylor 

Facts of the case:

Plaintiff hired ground floor from defendant, Defendant used to live on the top floor and the water was stored on the top floor. Water leaked without negligence of defendant and plaintiff's goods swept away.

Held:

Defendant won’t be liable because plaintiff have given consent to live there.

Act of Third Party or the Stranger:

In the case of Box V. Jabb

Facts of the case:

Drains were blocked by the stranger so here the defendant won’t be held liable

Statutory authority: So if you are the state does not act and somebody faces any problem so there wont be any liability held against the state

In the case of Green V. Chelsiea Waterworks Company 

Facts of the case:

Defendant legal duty was there to supply water. The pipe bursted and the plaintiffs premises flooded, here there was no negligence in the burst of pipe so the waterworks company was not held liable because it was a statutory authority.

Conclusion:

Strict Liability is one of the most important concept in Law of Torts. It’s important to constitute all three essentials of strict liability for considering a person guilty of the conduct.

In this article we came across the meaning, essentials and exceptions to strict liability detail along with the case laws.