The principle of strict liability has its origin in the leading case Ryland V. Fletcher. In this case B a mill owner employed independent contractors who were competent to construct a water reservoir for the purpose of his mill. In the course of construction, the contractors came across some old shafts and passages on B's land. They did not block them up but completed the construction. When the reservoir was filled with water water gushed through the shaft and flooded the mines of A.A sued B. The court held that B was liable on the ground of "Strict liability". Blackburn J held we think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".

Exceptions to the rule:

1. Act of God (vis major) which is defined to be such a direct violent sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not by any amount of ability have been foreseen or if foreseen could not by any amount of human care and skill have been resisted.

2. Plaintiff’s own default if the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property he cannot complain for the damage so caused.

3. Consent of the plaintiff (volenti non-fit injuria) where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land the liability under the rule does not arise.

4. Act of third party if the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger who neither the defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him the defendant will not be liable under this rule.

5. Statutory Authority no action will lie for doing that which the legislature has authorized if it be done without negligence although it does occasion damage to anyone; but an action does lie for doing that which the legislature has authorized if it be done negligently.

The Rule of Absolute Liability

The essential elements of absolute liability are-

• Dangerous Thing– As per the rules laid down the liability of escape of a thing from an individual’s land will arise only when the thing which is collected is a dangerous thing that is a thing which likely causes damage or injury to other people in person or their property on its escape.

• Escape– Anything which has caused damage or mischief should have escaped the area which was under the control of the defendant come under the ambit of absolute liability. Like it happened in the case of Read vs Lyons and Co where the plaintiff was working as an employee in the defendant’s company which was engaged in manufacturing shells. The accident happened while she was on her duty that day within the company’s premise. It happened when a piece which was manufactured there exploded and due to which the plaintiff suffered harm.

• Non-natural use of land– Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to non-natural use of land but if one is storing it in large quantities like in a reservoir as it was the case in Ryland vs Fletcher then it amounts to non-natural use of land.

• Mischief- To make the person liable under this principle the plaintiff at first needs to show that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escaped the dangerous thing which he has on his land which resulted in the injury further.

Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective

In M.C. Mehta v. UOI AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court evolved the rule of ‘absolute liability’ as part of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict liability. It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under Rylands rule. For instance, when the escape of the substance causing damage is due to the act of a stranger say due to sabotage there is no liability under the Rylands rule. The court observed: “This rule (Ryland v Fletcher) evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place we have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy.” The Supreme Court also laid down that the measure of compensation can be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise so that the compensation can have the deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it. Thus, unlike the strict liability where ordinary or compensatory damages are awarded under absolute liability exemplary damages are awarded.

Concept of Vicarious Liability and The Doctrine of Common Employment

Usually we see that a person is not liable for the acts done by the other person. However, under the law of torts a person can be held liable for another person. Also, for this person to held accountable for the act of the other person it is necessary that there exists any form of relationship between the person who is accused and the other person. In short there must be some sort of connection between these people.

Examples of Vicarious Liability: - The liability of doing any wrongful act on behalf of another person is based on the concept of respondent superior. Also, this means that the superior should be let liable. Some of the examples of relationship where vicarious liability may arise are principal - agent master-servant etc.

The doctrine of Common Employment means the master is not liable for the negligent act done by one servant to another in their course of employment which is also known as Fellow Servant Rule. It is based on the implied contract of service. The employee impliedly in the risk to another employee. It is an exception to the rule master is vicariously liable for the act done by his employee. As there is more ambiguity in this doctrine therefore it is restricted to use this doctrine to a larger extend. Act of a servant in the employment means:

1. He must be engaged in the business to perform

2. The act occurs during the time and limit authorized for employment.

3. It shall be an act to serve a master.

4. The act should be done by the servant against another servant without the knowledge the master.

Vicarious Liability of State in India

English Common Law the maxim w "The King can do no wrong" and Change of position by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Now the Crown is liable for a tort committed by its servants just like a private individual. In America the Federal Torts Claims Act 1946 provides the principles which substantially decides the question of liability of State. Presently State liability in India is defined by the Article 300(1) of the Constitution Section 176 of the Government of India Act 1935 Section 32 of the Government of India Act 1915 Section 65 of the Government of India Act 1858 same as that of the East India Company before 1858.

The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.

In Common Cause A Registered Society V. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 3538 and Chairman Railway Board V. Chandrima Das AIR 2000 SC 988 cases. It was held "where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties the remedy would still be available under the public law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under private law."

Respondeat Superior

The doctrine had its origin in the United States and originated from a Latin word meaning “Let the master answer.” This doctrine was brought on the premise of the limited economic capacity of the subordinates and to control the irresponsible behavior of superiors like the masters or employers. This doctrine is founded on public policy as its purpose is to allocate to the business the risks normally attendant thereto. When this doctrine applies an employer and the master will be liable for an employee’s and the servant’s negligent commissions or omissions that occur during employment. However, there should be the establishment of a relationship between the superior and the subordinate for the liability to fall on the superiors.

Qui facit per alium facit per se

Qui facit per alium facit per se" means "he who does an act through another is deemed in law to be have done it himself”. However, for liability to arise two parties must have a certain kind of relation. Liability of the principal for the act of his agent liability of spouses for each other's torts and liability of the master for the tort of his servant are all typical forms of such liability.

According to Salmond it stems from the legal assumption that all actions performed by a servant in and about his master's business are undertaken with his master's direct or implicit authority and therefore are the master's acts for which he can be kept liable. An individual who is capable of making compensation for the negative consequences of his actions should not be able to avoid doing so by delegating certain acts to servants or officials from which no redress can be sought.

This doctrine however is not new to the Indian political and legal system.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state is given immunity from civil suit criminal prosecution and legal wrong committed by it. This doctrine gives protection to the state. It is justification for wrongs committed by the state or its servants. This principle is derived from the legal maxim “rex non potest peccare” meaning “the king can do no wrong.” The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on the Common Law principle that the King can’t commit any wrong and that he cannot be guilty of personal negligence or misconduct and as such cannot be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of his servants.

Those actions of the state for which it is not answerable in any court of law. E.g.: Defence of the country raising and maintaining armed forces making peace or war foreign affairs acquiring and retaining territory They cannot be delegated by the State Therefore they are not amenable to jurisdiction of ordinary civil court. The State is immune from being sued as the jurisdiction of the courts in such matters is impliedly barred.

‘Sovereignty' and "acts of State" are thus two different concepts. The former vests in a person or body which is independent and supreme both externally and internally whereas latter may be act done by a delegate of sovereign within the limits of power vested in him which cannot be questioned in a Municipal Court. The nature of power which the Company enjoyed was delegation of the "act of State". An exercise of political power by the State or its delegate does not furnish any cause of action for filing a suit for damages or compensation against the State for negligence of its officers

Land mark cases

Kasturila V. State of Uttar Pradesh 1965

In this case the plaintiff was arrested by three policemen on a suspicion that he was carrying stolen property with him (which was gold and silver). The plaintiff got released on bail and was given his silver but the gold was kept in the custody of head constable. Later it was found that the constable fled to Pakistan after misappropriating the gold of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the Government as the gold was seized by the Government’s employee and in the course of his employment.

But the court here applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity and not the doctrine of vicarious liability and held that the claim of the plaintiff is not sustainable as the police officer who is indeed the employee of the state was exercising his power as per the sovereign authority.

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati 1962

This was the first case before our Supreme Court of India post-Independence dealing with the doctrine of Sovereign immunity. Here the driver of the jeep which was maintained and owned by the Rajasthan government negligently causes injury to pedestrians. The defense of sovereign immunity was claimed. But the court efficiently rejected such and held that merely by driving a government jeep one cannot claim sovereign immunity. Moreover, the court stated that “The old feudalistic notion of justice cannot be sustained” where the state has a welfare role to play.

M.C Mehta v. UOI 1987 (Oleum Gas leak Case)

In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle of Absolute Liability. This is the same concept as no-fault liability or strict liability but it’s just that the exception available in the case of strict liability is not present here.

In this case a petition was filed by a socio-activist lawyer seeking closure of Shriram Industries after leakage of oleum gas which affected many people. The Apex Court in Oleum Gas Leak case evolved the rule of Absolute liability i.e. if any person is engaged in an inherently hazardous or dangerous activity and if harm is caused due to an accident related to such activity the person would be held absolutely liable with no exception available to him.

Bolton v. Stone 1951

This case involves tort of negligence where the court was faced with the issue to determine how a reasonable person would behave and when there will be a breach of duty to establish a case of negligence.

In this case the claimant was hit by a ball from the neighboring cricket field and bought an action against them. It was found by the court that the field was arranged in a way that was protected by 17-foot gap between the ground and the top of the surrounding fence. Moreover, such an incident of the ball crossing the fence and hitting a person was rare. Thus, the House of Lords concluded that there was no breach of duty on part of cricket club as they took necessary precautions. Thus, defendants were held not to be negligent.

Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board 1878

In this case the court was asked to decide whether planting a poisonous tree can amount to non-natural use of the land so that defendant can be made strictly liable as per Ryland’s case. The court answered affirmatively as such tree was not of ordinary nature and moreover the branches of the tree were “escaped” to the plaintiff’s land nibbling which the horse of the plaintiff died. Thus, the defendant was made strictly liable as the risk was of foreseeable nature.