Mahima Kejriwal, LL.B, Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian, Law College, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
In many cases, an individual is held accountable for the act, which he could not have committed, or, further, to prevent any damage incurred by his act, he made all practicable attempts, but was still held responsible. This is the case where the individual is responsible even though there is no negligence;
these are laws in accordance with strict liability. This provision is recognised by the statute on the basis of the 'no-fault liability' guidelines. These principles derive from case laws. In the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, this provision was laid down and thus this rule is often referred to as “Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher”, but the rule of absolute liability was laid down for a number of exceptions given for in this rule. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India found that the offence should not be defended, but the defendant is responsible for the act. As part of law of torts, strict liability and absolute liability shall be defined. These two have the similar significance with somedifferences. Strict liability determines that one must be responsible for the damages incurred by the use of hazardous objects, the escape, and the un-natural use of the soil, with some exceptions.
Absolute responsibility is without question a broader sense of this responsibility. It states that even if he has taken charge of his land, an individual is liable to pay for injury. As specified in the case of strict liability, he cannot take any defences.
Keywords: Torts, Contract, Strict Liability, Vicarious liability, M.C. Mehta, Hazardous Objects.
Comments