Table of Contents

There are situations when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same, or there is no intention to cause the harm, or sometimes he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words, sometimes the law recognises ‘No Fault’ liability. In this connection, the rules laid down in two cases, firstly, in the decision of the House of Lords in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and, secondly, in the decision of the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) may be noted.


The rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher is generally known as the ‘Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher’ or ‘Rule of Strict Liability’. Because of the various exceptions to the applicability of this rule, it would be preferable to call it the rule of Strict Liability, rather than the rule of Absolute Liability.


While formulating the rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court itself termed the liability recognised in this case as Absolute Liability, and expressly stated that such liability will not be subject to such exceptions as have been recognised under Rylands v. Fletcher.


The Rule of Strict Liability

(The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher)


It has been noted in the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the House of Lords laid down the rule recognising ‘No Fault’ liability. The liability recognised was ‘Strict Liability’, i.e., even if the defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.


Rylands v. Fletcher (1868):

In this case, the defendant got a reservoir constructed, through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. There were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors, failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land. The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. Even though the defendant had not been negligent, he was held liable.


Essentials of Strict Liability:

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should be there: -

  1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
  2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
  3. It must be non-natural use of land.


1. Dangerous Thing:

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land arises provided the thing collected was a dangerous thing, i.e., a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The rule has also been applied to gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, and rusty wire.


2. Escape:

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the are outside the occupation and control of the defendant. Thus, if there is projection of the branches of a poisonous tree on the neighbour’s land, this amounts to an escape and if the cattle lawfully there on the neighbour’s land are poisoned by eating the leaves of the same, the defendant will be liable under the rule. (Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, (1878)).


Relevant Case Law (Case where there was no escape and, therefore, there was no liability under the rule):


  1. Read v. Lyons and Co. – In this case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory. While she was performing her duties inside the defendant’s premises, a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded whereby she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. Even though the shell which had exploded was a dangerous thing, it was held that the defendants were not liable because there was no “escape” of the thing outside the defendant’s premises and, therefore, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this case.


3. Non-Natural Use of Land:

Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity in Rylands v. Fletcher was held to be non-natural use of land. Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is ‘natural use’. For the use to be non-natural, it “must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community.”


Relevant Case Laws:


  1. Sochacki v. Sas (1947) – In this case, it has been held that the fire in a house in a grate is an ordinary, natural, proper, everyday use of the fire place in a room. If this fire spreads to the adjoining premises, the liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher cannot arise.


  1. Noble v. Harrison (1926) – It has been held that the tree (non-poisonous) on one’s land are not non-natural use of land. In this case, the branch of a non-poisonous tree growing on the defendant’s land, which overhung on the highway, suddenly broke and fell on the plaintiff’s vehicle passing along the highway. The branch had broken off due to some latent defect. It was held that the defendant could not be made liable under the rule of strict liability as growing of trees is not non-natural use of land.


  1. T.C. Balakrishnan v. T.R. Subramanian (1968) – In this case, it was held that the use of explosives in a maidan (open ground) even on a day of festival is a “non-naturalzz’ use of land because under the Indian Explosives Act, for making and storing explosive substances even on such places and at such occasions, licenses have to be taken from the prescribed authorities.


Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognised by Rylands v. Fletcher and some later cases: -


  1. Plaintiff’s own default;
  2. Act of God;
  3. Consent of the Plaintiff;
  4. Act of Third Party;
  5. Statutory Authority.


1. Plaintiff’s own Default:

Damage caused by escape due to the plaintiff’s own default was considered to be a good defence in Rylands v. Fletcher itself. If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused.


In Ponting v. Noakes (1849), the plaintiff’s horse intruded into the defendant’s land and died after having nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree there. The defendant was held not liable because the damage would not have occurred but for the horse’s own intrusion to the defendant’s land. The rule of strict liability didn’t apply here for another reason also, i.e., that there was no escape.


2. Act of God:

Act of God or Vis Major was also considered to be a defence to an action under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher by Justice Blackburn himself.


Act of God has been defined as, “Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility.”


The defence of act of god can be pleaded, if the escape has been unforeseen and because of supernatural forces without any human intervention.


Relevant Case Laws:


S.K. Shangrung Lamkang v. State of Manipur (2008) – In this case, two persons died due to electrocution caused by a falling of a high tension electric wire from its pole while they were proceeding riding a scooter. The respondents contended that fall of the electric wire was due to the lightning storm resulting in breaking of a tension disc insulator and not due to negligence of any of the respondents.


The Gauhati High Court explained that since the management of the supply of electricity was a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, when harm was caused to any one on account of any cause in the operation of the activity, the respondents, who were responsible in respect to the said activity would be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who were harmed in the course of operation of the said activity. Such liability, the court held, was not to be subject to any exception to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.


The court relied on the Apex Court’s decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:

“a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure of human life is liable under Law of Torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the manager of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as “strict liability”.


3. Consent of the Plaintiff:

In case of volenti non fit injuria, i.e., where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the rule Rylands v. Fletcher does not arise. Such a consent is implied where the source of danger is for the ‘common benefit’ of both the plaintiff and the defendant.


Relevant Case Law:


  1. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871) – In this case, the plaintiff hired ground floor of a building from the defendant. The upper floor of the building was occupied by the defendant himself. Water floored on the upper floor leaked without any negligence on the part of the defendant and injured the plaintiff’s goods on the ground floor. As the water had been stored for the benefit of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was held not liable.


4. Act of Third Party:

If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule.


Relevant Case Laws:


  1. Box v. Jubb (1879) – In this case, the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was not held liable for that.


  1. Rickards v. Lothian (1913) – In this case, some strangers blocked the waste pipes of a wash basin, which was otherwise in the control of the defendants, and opened the tap. The overflowing water damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The defendants were held not liable.


5. Statutory Authority:

An act done under the authority of a statute is a defence to an action for tort. The defence is also available when the action is under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Statutory Authority, however, cannot be pleaded as a defence when there is negligence.


Relevant Case Laws:


  1. Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894) – In this case, the defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A main belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.


The Rule of Absolute Liability

(The Rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)


In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of Oleum Gas on 4th and 6th December, 1985, from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same.


The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by the way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The court had in mind that within a period of one year, this was a second case of large scale leakage of deadly gas India, as a year earlier due to the leakage of MIC Gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, more than 3,000 persons had died and lacs of others were subjected to serious diseases of various kinds.


If the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher was applied to such like situations, then those who had established ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.


The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th century rule of English Law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day. It 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 the rule of strict liability.