Absolute Liability Merits Demerits – A Critical Analysis

Abstract

In numerous circumstances, an individual is found liable for an act that he could not have performed, or for which he made all reasonable efforts to avoid causing any harm, yet was nevertheless held liable. This is a situation in which an individual is held liable notwithstanding the absence of fault; these are strict liability rules. The legislation recognises this provision based on the \'no-fault responsibility\' criteria. These rules are based on case law. This clause was handed down in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, and hence this rule is commonly referred to as the \"Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher,\" however the rule of absolute A number of exceptions to this rule were established, and responsibility was established for them. The Supreme Court of India decided in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India that the defendant is responsible for the act and that the offence should not be disputed. In tort law, the phrases strict liability and absolute liability must be defined. These two have a similar meaning, however there are some variances. With limited limitations, strict responsibility dictates that one must be accountable for the harm caused by the use of dangerous objects, escape, and unnatural usage of the soil. Without a doubt, absolute responsibility is a larger notion of this obligation. It argues that an individual is accountable for harm even if he has acquired control of his land. He cannot raise any defences, as stated in the case of strict liability. Cauterization H0: The norm of absolute responsibility liability has no exceptions. H1: There are certain exceptions to the strict liability rule.” Industries and businesses that utilise or manufacture hazardous or intrinsically dangerous chemicals in their facilities are the main targets of the Absolute Liability rule\'s application. Because these industries had not exist previously, the Strict Liability rule could be applied to them on a broad scale. These industries now take advantage of the country\'s riches while also posing a threat to inhabitants. This Absolute Liability law requires companies to accept full and unqualified responsibility for their harms, putting people\' and society\'s health and well-being first.

Introduction

CERTIFICATE

The Project titled ‘Absolute liability merits demerits- A crictical analysis: submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad  as part of Internal assessment on law of torts is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Mrs k shanti , Assistant Professor at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree. 

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged. 

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on. 

Signature of the candidate 

Date: 31.12.2021.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to Mrs. k shanti for her enlightening lectures on law of torts and guiding me the path towards gaining knowledge on how to perform an effective research. Her instructions served as a major contribution towards completing this project. 

I would like to thank the Library Staff of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, for their co-operation which was necessary while availing the services of enormous encyclopedic library. 

I would also like to thank my friends, batch mates and seniors who inspired, helped and guided me in making this project. I am grateful to these above mentioned for their incredible guidance and support.

 Signature of the Candidate

Date: 31.12.2021.

I. INTRODUCTION

In its maximum fundamental form, absolute obligation refers to no-fault legal responsibility, wherein the perpetrator isn't always granted any of the restrictions protected withinside the strict legal responsibility rule. Absolute obligation is a greater intense form of strict legal responsibility that turned into hooked up in Rylands v. Fletcher1 and known through the Supreme Court of India in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India2. This problem arose following an aftermarket fueloline leak on the Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. facility in Delhi. three This fueloline leak came about rapidly after the catastrophic Bhopal fueloline leak, inflicting considerable problem in Delhi. Bhagwati CJ. turned into a trailblazer on this field. He did now no longer observe the guideline of thumb set in Rylands v. Fletcher4 at the important purpose that the thoughts hooked up in that choice aren't steady with modern jurisprudential thought. five In modern present day business society, wherein unsafe or inherently risky industries are required to perform improvement programmes, Justice Bhagwati additionally said that the guideline of thumb of strict legal responsibility turned into advanced withinside the nineteenth century, while nature business tendencies had been at their infancy. In modern present day business society, wherein unsafe or inherently risky industries are required to perform improvement programmes, this rule is now no longer relevant. Also, this law, which turned into advanced withinside the context of a totally unique social and financial framework, must now no longer be taken into consideration an impediment. There is a clean comparison among strict and permissive The Supreme Court hooked up absolutely the obligation rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, mentioning 4 key points: To start with, best the ones companies engaged in unsafe or intrinsically risky sports might be held accountable; which means different industries now no longer protected withinside the above listing might be issue to the Strict Liability Rule. Second, escaping a damaging item from one's land isn't always required, which means that the law will observe to each the ones harmed inner and past the premises. Third This rule does now no longer have an exception, not like the Strict Liability rule. Four, the quantity of damages is decided through the scale and economic electricity of the company. The organization should be held to be below an duty to offer that the unsafe or inherently risky pastime wherein it's miles engaged is performed with the very best requirements of safety, and if any damage takes place because of such pastime, the organization should be honestly susceptible to make amends for such damage, and it must be no solution to the organization to mention that it had taken all affordable care and that the damage happened with out its fault.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In Nigeria, Ezike, 20112 investigates inadequacies in not unusualplace regulation treatments and rules that save you equitable justice in conditions of environmental harm. The not unusualplace regulation of harm treatments and environmental legal responsibility rules have been examined. There is likewise a dialogue of not unusualplace regulation and federal strict legal responsibility laws. It has been validated that the not unusualplace regulation treatment is useless in securing good enough environmental compensation. The truth that strict obligation isn't appropriately demonstrated withinside the relevant statutes while polluters keep to keep away from accountability." " The validity of strict obligation in crook regulation, in addition to the query of the fee of strict legal responsibility in crook regulation can be associated however aren't the same (Prendergast, 2011)3 . The trouble of the constitutionality of strict obligation in Ireland is handled on this paper. It critiques the problem of which constitutional standards are infringed via way of means of strict crook legal responsibility. The response proposed is that in an incredible situation the presumption of legitimacy may be violated, however in addition, the unconstitutionality of strict obligation in line with se withinside the regulation of Ireland is tough to understand. The first segment of this paper analyses an Irish case objectively, mentioning that the judgement does now no longer show incompatibility with the Constitution. The 2d component examines viable procedural bases on which strict obligation ought to be contained; considers the advice that the presumption of innocence be appeared as containment of strict legal responsibility and underlines the guideline of thumb of regulation as an important manage of criminalization.” “ Most students query the application of absolute legal responsibility, which makes it beside the point whether or not an infringement defendant copied from the patentee or independently invented the patented invention (Merges, 2014)4 . This take a look at in part defends patent regulation’s absolute legal responsibility rule.

  A. Reseach Question

1. Is Absolute Liability applicable in the Indian Scenario?
2. What was the need to introduce Absolute Liability?
3. What is the relevance for the rule of Absolute Liablity?
4. How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Liability?

B. Objectives of the study

1. To understand the concept of strict and absolute liability through discussion of landmark judgments.
2. To study the rules of strict and absolute liability in detail, i.e., in terms of essentials, exceptions, defences available, etc.”

III. CONTENT TO BE EXPLAINED

 Rapidly accelerating commercial improvement has delivered with it a myriad of virulent fitness problems. Enterprises are civil additives with rights and obligations toward the general public and are accountable now no longer to damage human fitness and nature. They have an "absolute non-delegable obligation" to the community. In Hoy v. Miller11, Justice Golden expounded the time period Absolute Liability with fantastic expertise, “absolute legal responsibility is a legal responsibility with out fault – a legal responsibility for which there's no excuse.”

The Principle of Absolute Liability turned into formulated and verbalised often in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1986, and later in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. Absolute Liability is a tortuous component. This precept enforces the obligation of care owed to the general public with the aid of using groups that cope with dangerous factors. Any organization engaged withinside the manufacturing and use of dangerous materials have to make certain that no damage is completed to that area's residents. If someone is harmed, the corporation will be responsible, and no defence or high-quality occasions may also relieve them of such legal responsibility. Those responsible can't use defence along with negligence, fault, act of God, blunders to searching for an exempt fame from repayment and legal responsibility.

Hazardous additives are the stipulations for the implementation of Absolute Liability. The Courts can handiest practice this precept if an detail dangerous to one's fitness and the surroundings places existence at risk. Examples of dangerous factors consist of poisonous gas, vibrations, explosive materials, etc. However, withinside the case of Absolute Liability 'get away' as an detail isn't necessary. Unlike Strict Liability, get away of the detail isn't required; the guideline of thumb will practice to the ones injured in and out of doors the premise. Additionally, Strict Liability's precept includes land to be of non-natural; however, that isn't the case with Absolute Liability. Moreover, the wide variety of deaths is beside the point at the same time as thinking about the volume of Liability and repayment to be paid DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY AS MENTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M. C. MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA12 • In the guideline of thumb of Rylands v. Fletcher thirteen failure to cowl instances of harm to individuals withinside the premises of the regulation calls for an get away from an object's premises, which reasons harm. The new rule does now no longer permit the sort of differentiation to be made among individuals withinside the premises wherein the corporation operates and individuals out of doors the property. The component that reasons harm to the premises isn't a prerequisite for enforcing the guideline of thumb. • Additionally, the guideline of thumb in Rylands v. Fletcher14although strict and now no longer reliant at the defendant's misdoing, the present day rule isn't absolute, as it's far difficulty to numerous exceptions.

However, the Mehta case's new rule isn't handiest strict however absolute and is difficulty to no exception at all. • Another important factor of difference among the 2 regulations is withinside the be counted of award of damages. Damages awardable wherein the guideline of thumb in Rylands v. Fletcher15 is relevant. However, it will be normal or countervailing in instances wherein the relevant regulation is laid down in M.C. Mehta's case; the Court may also grant exemplary damages and the larger and more prosperous the enterprise the greater the amount of compensation to be paid            

IV. NEED FOR ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

 (A) High charge of business increase India is one of the quickest growing economies. The vintage rule become set in an technology wherein there has been no extraordinary increase of industries and economies and as a result isn't always suitable for the contemporary-day scenario.

(B) Varying use