13. Strict Liability

Questions

1. Discuss the doctrine of strict liability with an illustration.

Introduction to Strict Liability

Strict liability is a foundational doctrine in the law of torts that holds a person or entity liable for damages or injuries caused by their actions or property, regardless of fault or negligence.
Unlike negligence-based liability, in strict liability the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was at fault or acted negligently. Instead, the focus is on the nature of the activity or thing that caused harm.
This doctrine is typically applied in cases involving inherently dangerous or hazardous activities or things brought onto a person’s land that may cause harm if they escape.
The principle aims to allocate risk to those engaged in dangerous activities or possessing hazardous substances, incentivizing them to exercise utmost caution, even beyond ordinary negligence.

Liability without fault: The defendant is liable even if all reasonable precautions were taken.
Inherent danger: Usually relates to inherently hazardous activities or substances.
Escape requirement: The harmful substance or thing must escape the defendant’s control.
Direct causation: The plaintiff must prove the defendant’s activity caused the damage.
Non-natural use of land: This doctrine often applies when land is used in a way that is not ordinary or natural.

The defendant must have introduced or accumulated something on their land that is not naturally present.

The use of the land must be extraordinary or unusual, involving risk beyond normal usage.

The dangerous substance or thing must escape from the defendant’s land or control.

The thing brought onto the land must be something likely to cause damage or harm if it escapes.

Actual damage or injury must occur as a direct consequence of the escape.

Facts: The defendant, Rylands, constructed a reservoir on his land by hiring contractors. Due to negligent construction, the reservoir burst, and water flooded the plaintiff Fletcher’s neighboring mine causing significant damage.
Judgement: The court established the rule of strict liability, holding Rylands liable regardless of negligence. The principle stated that a person who, for their own purposes, keeps on their land something likely to do harm if it escapes, must keep it at their peril.
Key Points:

Significance: This case set a precedent for strict liability in tort law for dangerous substances escaping land, influencing environmental and industrial liability law worldwide.

Use of explosives, handling hazardous chemicals, or running a nuclear reactor are examples where liability arises without proving negligence because they are deemed ultra-hazardous activities.
Example: A company storing toxic chemicals is held liable if a leak occurs and harms neighbors, regardless of safety measures taken.

Owners are strictly liable for harm caused by wild animals or known dangerous domestic animals.
Example: If a person keeps a tiger or venomous snake and it escapes and injures someone, strict liability applies.

Manufacturers and sellers can be held strictly liable for defective products that cause injury even if they exercised all possible care.
Famous product liability cases include McDonald's hot coffee burn cases and defects in automotive or pharmaceutical products.
Liability extends to manufacturers, designers, wholesalers, and retailers.

Aspect	Strict Liability	Negligence
Fault Requirement	No fault or negligence needed	Plaintiff must prove defendant’s fault or negligence
Focus	Nature of defendant’s activity (dangerous or hazardous)	Defendant’s conduct and failure of reasonable care
Defenses	Limited defenses (e.g. act of God, plaintiff’s own fault)	Contributory negligence, assumption of risk, reasonable care
Key Cases	Rylands v Fletcher	Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Liability for	Dangerous activities, wild animals, defective products	Breach of duty causing foreseeable harm

Water from a reservoir burst and damaged plaintiff’s mine. Established strict liability for non-natural use of land and escape of dangerous substance.

Defendant was held liable for fire started by a lightning strike that spread from trees on their land to neighboring properties. Highlighted the duty of persons to control dangerous natural conditions.

The court held a manufacturer liable under strict liability for an exploding bottle that injured a waitress, even though there was no proof of negligence. This was a foundational American product liability case.

Public Safety: Ensures those engaged in hazardous activities bear the cost of damages, promoting safer practices.
Risk Allocation: Places burden on party creating risk rather than innocent victims.
Encourages Precaution: Imposes heavy responsibility to maintain high safety standards.
Simplifies Legal Process: No need to prove negligence eases claims for injured parties.

The doctrine of strict liability in the law of tort is a vital principle that holds persons or entities liable for damages caused by hazardous substances or activities, irrespective of fault or negligence.
Its clearest articulation is in the landmark case Rylands v Fletcher (1868), which set out the elements of strict liability involving non-natural use of land and escape of dangerous substances causing foreseeable harm.
The doctrine finds application in various contexts such as dangerous activities, animal attacks, and defective products.
While strict liability imposes a heavy responsibility, it serves an important societal function to protect public safety and fairly allocate risks arising from hazardous enterprises.
This principle ensures that those who create or control hazardous risks compensate for the harm caused, fostering a more careful and accountable use of potentially dangerous activities or things.