Liability law, an important component of the legal architecture, seeks to hold persons or entities liable for the harm or damage they cause to others. The terms strict liability' and 'absolute liability are the key oceans of the law.

Strict responsibility is a legal principle that holds an individual or entity liable for damages caused by their acts or activities, regardless of measures taken or intentions. The plaintiff does not need to prove carelessness or blame; all that is required is that the defendant's actions caused the damage. For example, if a pet tiger owned by an individual escapes and injures someone, the owner may be held accountable under strict responsibility, even though all reasonable steps were taken to avoid the escape.

However, strict responsibility is not without defences. Defendants may argue that the plaintiff freely embraced the risk or that the plaintiff's fault contributed to the loss, potentially absolving them from the obligation.

Absolute liability, on the other hand, is a tougher form of culpability in which the defendant is held accountable for the damage they do, regardless of safeguards taken or defences raised. This principle refers to inherently harmful activities or substances where the risk of injury is so great that those involved are expected to bear full responsibility for any damages if any escape.

Following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the concept of absolute culpability evolved in India. The Supreme Court of India created the notion of absolute liability in its historic judgement (M.C. Mehta versus Union of India), holding the firm involved accountable for the disastrous repercussions of the gas leak, regardless of the safeguards they claim to have taken.

Question: A chemical factory, following all safety guidelines and regulations, suffers an unexpected explosion due to a malfunctioning valve, leading to a toxic gas leak. The leak causes severe health issues among the local residents. In this case:

The chemical factory is not liable as it followed all safety guidelines and regulations.

The chemical factory is liable only if it intentionally caused the malfunction.

The chemical factory is liable because its operations caused harm.

The chemical factory is not liable unless it was aware of the faulty valve.

View Solution

What is the primary factor that diffrentiates strict liablity from absolute liablity ?

Strict liability demands that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that obligation was breached, and that the plaintiff's injuries were the result

Strict liability demands that the defendant demonstrate that the plaintiff owed them a duty of care, that obligation was breached, and that the plaintiff's injuries were the result

Strict liability demands that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty of trust, that obligation was breached, and that the plaintiff's injuries were the result

Strict liability demands that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that obligation was breached, and that the plaintiff's injuries were the result indirectly.

View Solution

Concepts Covered - 1

Rules of Absolute Liability

A person or organisation is subject to liability for harm brought on by their actions, even if they were not negligent or at fault, under the legal doctrine of absolute liability. In contrast, strict liability demands that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that obligation was breached, and that the plaintiff's injuries were the result.
Activities that are seen to be inherently harmful, such as the use of explosives or the release of hazardous materials, are often subject to absolute liability. It is also occasionally enforced on operations that don't necessarily endanger the public but nonetheless present a serious risk, such the running of nuclear power plants or the storing of hazardous waste.
Absolute liability is a crucial legal concept that aids in safeguarding the public from harm. It encourages organisations and people to make every effort to prevent accidents, even if they are brought on by routine activities that are not intrinsically harmful.
Absolute liability does not, however, come without detractors. Some contend that it is unreasonable to hold organisations and people accountable for losses brought on by mishaps that they could not have possibly avoided. Others contend that unlimited liability prevents economic growth and innovation.
Absolute liability is nevertheless a crucial legal principle in many nations around the world, notwithstanding these concerns. It is a useful tool for safeguarding the public and motivating organisations and people to adopt all required safety procedures.

Essential ingredients of absolute liability:

The defendant must have engaged in an activity that is subject to absolute liability.
The defendant's activity must have caused the plaintiff's injuries.
The plaintiff's injuries must have been foreseeable.

Illustration:

A company operates a nuclear power plant. One day, there is an accident at the power plant that releases radioactive material into the environment.
The radioactive material injures people who live near the power plant.
The victims can sue the company for absolute liability, even if the company was not negligent in operating the power plant.
The victims only need to prove that the accident at the power plant caused their injuries and that their injuries were foreseeable. (Bhopal Gas tragedy).

Case laws:

Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990): The Supreme Court of India held that the government was absolutely liable for the damages caused by the Bhopal gas disaster, even though the government was not directly involved in the operation of the Union Carbide factory that released the gas. The court reasoned that the government had a duty to regulate the use of dangerous substances, and that it had failed to do so in this case.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996): The Supreme Court of India held that the government was absolutely liable for the damages caused by the leakage of hazardous waste from a chemical plant in Maharashtra. The court reasoned that the government had a duty to ensure the safe disposal of hazardous waste, and that it had failed to do so in this case.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court of India held that the government was absolutely liable for the damages caused by the collapse of a dam in Gujarat. The court reasoned that the dam had been constructed in a seismically active zone, and that the government had failed to take adequate safety measures.