rules of strict liability for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

• Strict liability is a legal principle that holds a person or organisation liable for damages caused by their activities, even if they were not negligent or at fault.
• This is in contrast to the traditional negligence standard, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the plaintiff's injuries.
• Strict liability is often imposed on activities that are considered to be inherently dangerous, such as the use of explosives or the release of hazardous substances. 
• It is also sometimes imposed on activities that are not inherently dangerous, but that pose a significant risk to the public, such as dog ownership or the sale of products.

Essential ingredients of strict liability:

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

Defences to strict liability:

There are a few defences that may be available to a defendant in a strict liability case. These include:

1. Act of God:An event that is unforeseeable and unavoidable, such as a natural disaster.
2. Plaintiff's contributory negligence/ plaintiff the wrongdoer:  If the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries, they may not be able to recover full damages from the defendant.
3. Volenti non fit injuria: If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury, they may not be able to recover damages from the defendant.
4. Common use products: Strict liability is generally not imposed on sellers of common use products, such as food and clothing.
5. Unavoidably unsafe products:If a product is unavoidably unsafe, even with the best possible safety features, the seller may not be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the product.
6. Statutory authority : If a defendant was using the best available technology and safety procedures at the time of the accident, they may not be held strictly liable.

Case law and its application:

• One of the most famous cases involving strict liability is Rylands v Fletcher (1868). In this case, the defendant constructed a reservoir on his land. The reservoir leaked and flooded the plaintiff's mine, causing significant damage. The court held that the defendant was strictly liable for the damage, even though he was not negligent.
• Another important case involving strict liability is Greenman v Yuba Power Products (1963). In this case, the plaintiff was injured when a defective wood chipper manufactured by the defendant malfunctioned. The court held that the defendant was strictly liable for the plaintiff's injuries, even though the defendant had not been negligent.

Strict liability has been applied to a wide range of activities, including:

* Product liability

* Animal bites

* Environmental pollution

* Keeping wild animals

* Using explosives

* Storing hazardous substances

• Strict liability is an important legal principle that helps to protect the public from harm. It encourages businesses and individuals to take all reasonable steps to prevent accidents, even if those accidents are caused by activities that are not inherently dangerous.

Here is an example of how strict liability might be applied in a real-world situation:

• Illustration: Company manufactures and sells a type of car that has a defect in the braking system. As a result of the defect, a car crashes and the driver is injured. The driver can sue the company for strict liability, even if the company was not negligent in designing or manufacturing the car. The driver only needs to prove that the defect caused the crash and that they were injured.
• Loophole: The company may be able to defend against the strict liability claim by arguing that the driver assumed the risk of injury. For example, if the driver knew about the defect before the crash and still chose to drive the car, the company may be able to argue that the driver assumed the risk of injury.
• However, even if the driver assumed the risk of injury, the company may still be held liable if the driver's injuries were unforeseeable. For example, if the driver suffered a serious brain injury in the crash, the company may still be held liable, even if the driver knew about the defect and assumed the risk of minor injuries.
• Strict liability is a complex area of law and there are many exceptions to the general rule. If you have been injured by a product or activity that is subject to strict liability.