BY Utkarsh Sachora
Fault is a type of liability in which
the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was either negligent or
intentional.
In Fault
based liability the intention or state of mind of a person is relevant to
ascertain his liability. A person can be held liable only for the harm caused
by him due to his breach of duty. In
such cases the court must see whether the wrongful act was done intentionally
or not.
So, to determine that an act is
intentional or not, a test is conducted i.e. Reasonable Man test:-
To ascertain the intention of defendant
we apply the reasonable man test, in which we compare the conduct of the
defendant with that of a reasonable man and if his conduct is less than what a
reasonable man would have done in that particular situation, he will be held
liable.
Some Examples:
- ·
If man has no reason to
believe that there are sewage pipes beneath his land and the same get damaged
while excavating the land, he will not be held liable for the damage to the
pipes.
- · If a man is driving a car with proper care and suddenly his car malfunctions thereby causing injury to somebody on a public road, the defendant cannot be held liable. He can take the defense of inevitable accident
Liability without
Fault:
There are certain situations where
knowledge or intention does not matter and the person can be held liable even
without having any wrongful intention or negligence on his part. In such a case
innocence or proper care of the defendant are no defense. This is called No Fault Liability.
There
are two rules associated with No Fault Liability: Strict liability and Absolute
Liability.
Strict Liability
This rule states that any person who
keeps hazardous substances on his premises or land will be held responsible if
such substance escape the premises or land and causes any damage to others.
NOTE: Here the intention and proper care
of the defendant does not matter.
Essentials:
1.
Dangerous
Things: These are the things which can cause
damage is it escape, things like explosives, toxic gases, electricity, etc. Can
be termed as dangerous things.
2.
Non-
Natural use of land: "Non-
Natural" means that there must be some special use which increases the
danger to others.
3.
Escape:
It basically means that the material
should escape from the premises or land of the defendant and should not be
within the reach/control of the defendant after its escape.
Leading Case:
Rylands v. Fletcher
Facts: the defendant owned a mill and
wanted to improve its water supply. For this purpose, he employed a firm of
reputed engineers to construct a reservoir nearby. The problem occurred when
the reservoir was so full and one day that the water from it started
over-flowing. The water flowed with so much force that it entered the plaintiff’s
mine and damaged everything. The engineers, who were independent contractors of
the defendant, were clearly at fault. This is because they were negligent in
constructing the reservoir. This is exactly what the defendant also said for
avoiding his liability.
In this case, the court, however,
disagreed and evolved the strict liability rule. According to this rule, when
somebody keeps something hazardous on his property for his benefit, it should
not escape and affect others. In case it so escapes, the owner of that thing
must compensate the victim even if he was not negligent.
Exceptions of This
Rule
1.
Plaintiff’s
Fault
If the plaintiff is at fault and any
damage is caused, the defendant would not be held liable, as the plaintiff
himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.
Illustration:
If the plaintiff's horse died after it
entered the property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The
defendant will not be held strictly liable for such loss.
2.
ACT
OF GOD
Act
of god or
Vis Major it is same as inevitable accident in which injury or harm could
not foreseen and avoided with a difference that here the injury is due to
natural forces or calamities and is
unexpected to anticipate. It’s an event over which there is no control of human
and the damage is caused by the forces of nature like heavy rainfall, storms,
tempest, tides, and volcanic eruptions etc. Black’s
law dictionary defined an act of god as “An act occasioned exclusively by
violence of nature without any human intervention”. Act of god is a good defense
under the law of torts. It is also recognized as a valid defence in the rule of
strict liability in the case of Ryland’s v. Fletcher.
There
are two essential elements needed to claim the defence of act of god-
- ·
There must be working
of natural forces
- ·
The occurrence must be
extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded
against.
3.
Plaintiff's
Consent-
Volenti
non-fit Injuria: It is a legal maxim which means “a willing victim cannot
claim”. It states that if a person willingly suffers some harm, he has no
remedy against it, he cannot complain about the same. The principle behind this
defense is that no one can claim a right that he himself voluntarily abandoned
or waived. Consent to suffer harm may be express or implied.
For example-If
a spectator in a cricket match is injured by a ball hit by player during match
he can’t claim damages for the same because here his consent is implied.
4.
Statutory
Authority-
If the legislature or a statue authorized
the doing of an act; no action can be claimed for that act. If any person
injured from such an act which is authorized he can have no remedy. Thus, the
damage resulting from an act is not actionable even though it would otherwise
be a tort.
For example-
if a railway line is constructed there may be interference with private land.
When the train is running, there may also be some incidental harm due to noise,
vibration, smoke, emission of sparks, etc. No action will lie either for
interference with the land or for incidental harm, except for the payment of
such compensation which the Act itself may have provided, as the construction
and the use of the railway is authorized
by a statute.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
The Rule of Absolute Liability, in
simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus the
exceptions. It is similar to the rule of strict liability except for the fact
that there are no defenses to it.
This rule relates to ultra hazardous or
inherently dangerous activities which may possibly cause huge and grave damage
to the public at large.
Case: MC MEHTA vs.
UNION OF INDIA
In India the rule of absolute liability evolved
in the case of MC MEHTA vs. UOI. In this
case, there was leakage of poisonous oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram
industries in Delhi. As a result of which several person were injured. The
court held that irrespective of negligence or intention, the defendant was
absolutely liable for the damage caused. The Court held that in this rule of
absolute liability, there are no defences available as in strict liability. The
court said "Person who carries on such an extremely dangerous activity is
responsible for any harm that mat flow from such activity".
BHOPAL GAS LEAK CASE
This rule of absolute liability was also
upheld in the Bhopal gas leak Case. The Union Carbide Corporation, an American
enterprise established a pesticide plant in India because of its central
location. The plant was supposed to produce Sevin, a pesticide. Union Carbide
and the Indian Government had a deal, and under this idea, the Union Carbide
had a 50.9% share and the Indian Investors had a 40.1% share. The plant was
named as The Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL). UCIL started its production of
pesticide in 1979. While this pesticide was produced, a toxic liquid was also
produced i.e., Methyl Isocyanate (MIC). Since MIC is a very toxic chemical it
required great maintenance.
Around
1:00 A.M. on 4th December 1984, when the MIC gas started swallowing up the
whole of Bhopal people who were sleeping peacefully started feeling the change
in the air. They ran for their lives but couldn’t escape their death. Some who
were able to save their lives weren’t able to save themselves from the coming
disabilities. All this happened because of leakage of the MIC gas from the tank
E106. Earlier too complaints were being made about the maintainability of the
plant, of how MIC was leaking in small amounts. The previous incidents of
leakage had also caused the death of some people and left others severely
injured. But, the authorities paid no attention to it. The machines were worn
out but no replacement was there.
Finally,
after the propagation of the rule of Absolute liability, the Court held UCC
liable for the Bhopal tragedy. Though people had their doubts that the Indian
Judiciary won’t be able to handle the situation. They thought that the
wrongdoers would escape from their liability under the rule of strict liability
but it didn’t happen. The Indian Judiciary brought fair justice to the
victims.
On
14th and 15th February 1989, the Supreme Court ordered UCC to pay a sum of $470
million (Rs 750 crores) to the victims.
Please Note: The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We try our level best to avoid any misinformation or abusive content. If you found any in this website, please report us at inlightoflaw@gmail.com
0 Comments