DR.
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL
LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.
SYNOPSIS FOR PROJECT ON LAW OF TORTS
TITLE: ‘ Rylands v Fletcher and its effect in India - the emergence of
Absolute Liability in Common Law (NO FAULT LIABILITY)’
SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
Swarnim Pandey Mr. Abdullah Nasir
Section- B Assistant Professor
Roll No.- 157 Faculty of Law
SEM- 2 RMLNLU.
INTRODUCTION:
Rylands v Fletcher1 is one of the most famous and a landmark case in torts. It
was an English case in year 1868 and was the progenitor of the Doctrine of
Strict Liability and ultimately that of Absolute Liability in the famous Indian
case of M C Mehta v the Union of India2. This case paved the way for
judgement of many more cases on nuisance and liability in case of negligence.
Even if one is not on fault, he can be held liable for negligence. Strict liability
states a person responsible for the damage or loss done by his or her activity
without the elements of concern such as negligence, mens rea and any kind of
remote liability. It does have certain exceptions though. Absolute liability in
lay-terms is strict liability minus all the exceptions.
The above mentioned case is pivotal in nature and holds good even today. Its
use can be found in several other cases, Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v. Eastern
Countries Leather Plc., Transco Plc v. Stockport MBC.
This case not only laid down the doctrine of strict liability and paved the way
for the principle of absolute liability but also laid down the theory of unnatural
use of land and creation of risk.
NEED FOR BIRTH OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY(the effect of Rylands v
Fletcher in India):
A more stringent rule of strict liability than the rule in Rylands v Fletcher was
laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M C Mehta v. Union of
India.
The court held that the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher which evolved in the 19th
century did not fully meet the needs of modern industrial society with highly
developed scientific knowledge and technology were hazardous or inherently
dangerous industries were necessary to be carried out on as a part of the
1
(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
2
1987 SCR (1) 819
development programme and that it was necessary to lay down a new rule not
yet recognised by the English law, to adequately deal with the problems arising
in a highly industrialised economy.
SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT:
This paper deals with two important principles in law of torts- Strict liability
and Absolute liability. It traces the evolution of the doctrine of strict liability in
the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher and studies its essentials and
exceptions . The second part of the paper deals with the rule of absolute liability
that was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of
India (which found its genesis from the case of Rylands v Fletcher). It also deals
with the application of the principle to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy3 and finally,
discusses the Public Liability Insurance Act that was framed in pursuance of the
rule.
The paper at hand follows the effect of Rylands v Fletcher in India which
ultimately led to a doctrine minus the exceptions of Strict liability. The paper
lays emphasis on he discussion of ‘NO FAULT LIABILITY’.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The research methodology will be purely doctrinal with the help of the
following;
Primary and secondary sources (books, journals and articles)
Internet
3
1989 SCC (2) 540
CONCLUSION:
Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or
the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. There are many
principles governing the law of torts. Generally, a person is liable for his own
wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for the acts done by others. If
an individual commits a fault, he is liable for it. However, there is a principle
which claims an individual liable without his being at fault. This is the ‘no fault
liability principle’. In this case, the liable person may not have done any act of
negligence or may have put in some positive efforts but the rule claims him for
the compensation. This principle has its roots in the two landmark cases-
Rylands v Fletcher (strict liability) and [Link] v Union of India(absolute
liability; an offspring of the former).
Both these rules follow the ‘no fault liability principle’, a principle in which the
defendant is held liable even if he is not directly or indirectly responsible for the
damages caused to the plaintiff.