Latest Articles
Back
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Liability?
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Liability?
To understand how different it is, one must know what Strict Liability is and what are its essentials and exceptions. Then come to Absolute Liability and the difference between both. In tort, Strict Liability is the liability imposed upon a party without finding a fault. The plaintiff only needs proof that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imposes Strict Liability to situations which are considered as inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour and needless law by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution.
The person from whom the property escaped will be held responsible even when he has not been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is not imposed because of negligence on his part but because the substance was kept somewhere where it was not meant to be kept. Based on this the judicial pronouncement the concept of Strict Liability came into force.
The principle of Strict Liability was evolved in the case Ryland v. Fletcher where it was held that the defendant was liable not due to negligence but he had kept a hazardous substance in his premises. From this we come to know the essentials and they are:-
- Dangerous Substance-To constitute Strict Liability one must possess a dangerous substance in his premises. Dangerous substances include toxic gas, explosives etc.
- Escape- The second essential is that the dangerous substance should escape from the premise and it shouldn’t be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.
- Non natural use of land- By ‘non-natural’, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special use which increases the danger to others. If a spark of fire escapes, one shall not be held liable since it is natural use of land. But if a toxic gas escapes from a person's room, then he shall be held liable since a room is not the place to keep a toxic gas.
Exception to Strict Liability is:-
- Plaintiff's Fault- If the substance escaped due to the plaintiff's fault, then the defendant shall not be held responsible.
- Act of God- If it was an event that was beyond human activity
- Act of third party- If the act of a third party which couldn’t be foreseen had taken place, then the person shall not be held liable.
- Consent of the plaintiff- Volenti non fit injuria is an exception to Strict Liability
Absolute Liability can simply be said as Strict Liability minus exceptions. The concept of Absolute Liability was evolved in the case MC Mehta v. Union Of India. According to the rule of Absolute Liability, if any person is engaged in any activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to which any accident occurred, then the person carrying out such an activity shall be held absolutely liable. The exception to the Strict Liability wouldn’t be considered.
This is what makes Absolute Liability different from that of Strict Liability. A person liable for Strict Liability can claim for the exceptions as laid in Strict Liability but Absolute Liability is one which does not have any exceptions.
