Concept of Liability under Law of Torts | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• An obligation that legally binds an individual to rectify a wrongful act they may have committed. This legal liability under the Law of Torts can stem from explicit or implicit contracts or as a consequence of torts committed.
• The liabilities of an individual do not typically transfer to their representatives beyond their estate. For instance, a master is accountable for the actions of their servant while in service, performed within the usual scope of business, presumed to be authorized by the master.
• In cases of no-fault liability, legal responsibility for an injury can be imposed on the wrongdoer without the need to prove carelessness or fault.

Vicarious Liability under Law of Torts

• Liability of the Principal for the Tort of His Agent: When someone is held responsible for the actions of another, it's known as vicarious liability under the Law of Torts. In this scenario, a person is accountable for their own deeds only.
• Liability of Partners for Each Other's Torts: Partners can be held liable for each other's wrongful acts.
• Liability of the Master for the Tort of His Servant: According to the principle of 'Respondent Superior,' a master can be held liable for the actions of their servant as if the master had committed the act personally. The master can be held liable if the servant committed the tort within the scope of their employment. Specific conditions must be met for the principle to be held accountable for the agent's actions.
• Mistake/Fraud of the Servant: When a servant exceeds their lawful authority and causes harm, the master may be held responsible based on the nature of the act. Additionally, the servant is typically authorized to protect the master's property.

Partners in a Partnership Firm

• Partners in a partnership firm have a relationship similar to that of a principal and agent.
• When a partner commits a tort in the ordinary course of business of the firm, all other partners are equally liable for the consequences, just like the party responsible for the wrongdoing.

Lloyd versus Grace Smith and Company

• In the case of Lloyd versus Grace Smith and Company, a lady sold her property to a company.
• The lady was required to sign a few documents, but before she could do so, the company sent its agent to obtain her signature on the property papers.
• Regrettably, the agent deceitfully prepared a gift deed for the lady's property and obtained her signature on it without her knowledge or consent.
• Subsequently, when the lady discovered the fraudulent act, she filed a lawsuit against the company.
• As a result, the company was held vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of its agent, even though the company itself did not directly engage in the misconduct.

Strict Liability under Law of Torts

Ryland's v Fletcher (1868)

• The case involved a defendant who hired contractors to build a reservoir on his land, resulting in damage to a neighboring coal mine due to a burst pipe.
• The court held the defendant strictly liable, emphasizing that even if the action was performed by an independent contractor, the defendant was responsible.

Exceptions to Strict Liability under Law of Torts

Plaintiff's own fault

• If the claimant is at fault for the damage, they have no legal recourse for compensation.
• Example: In Ponting v Noakes (1849), a claimant's horse trespassed and died from eating a poisonous tree on the defendant's property, leading to no liability for the defendant.

Act of God

• When damage occurs due to natural events beyond human control.
• Example: Damage caused by heavy rainfall, tides, or storms is considered an Act of God.

Consent of Plaintiff

• If the claimant willingly accepted the risk and the defendant was not negligent, the defendant is not held liable.
• Example: When a person agrees to participate in a risky activity, they may not hold others responsible for any resulting harm.

Act of Third Party

• If harm is caused by a stranger's actions over whom the defendant has no control, the defendant is not accountable.
• Example: If a third party, unrelated to the defendant, causes damage, the defendant may not be held liable under strict liability.

Statutory Authority

• An action authorized by law provides a complete defense, limiting the claimant's ability to seek remedies.
• Example: Construction of a railway line causing disruption to private lands may be permitted by law, offering compensation but limiting legal action against the construction.

Absolute Liability under Law of Torts

• Absolute Liability under the Law of Torts refers to a form of strict liability without any exceptions. In the legal context, when absolute liability is imposed, the burden of proof solely rests on the defendant without any room for exemptions.
• In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), a significant precedent was set regarding absolute liability. The case involved a U.S. firm that was producing oleum gas in India. Due to a third party's negligence in activating safety measures, a leakage of oleum gas occurred, resulting in damages and fatalities in India.
• Initially, the U.S. firm attempted to evade liability by citing the principle of strict liability, arguing that the damage was caused by the third party's actions. However, this stance would have left the victims without any recourse for compensation.
• Recognizing the injustice of the situation, the court introduced the concept of Absolute Liability. Under this principle, the U.S. firm was held absolutely liable to compensate the victims, bypassing the usual exceptions of strict liability.
• This case exemplifies how Absolute Liability serves to ensure that victims are not deprived of remedies in situations where strict liability may fall short. It underscores the importance of accountability and the need to prioritize compensation for those affected by harmful activities, irrespective of fault attribution.

Conclusion

• The concept of vicarious liability is intricate, entangled between the aim to safeguard victims' rights for adequate compensation and the concern of not overwhelming employers with the actions of their employees. Despite contradicting the principle that wrongdoers should bear responsibility for their actions, the doctrine of vicarious liability appears fitting as it serves a valuable purpose: upholding safety standards and providing assurance to victims of negligence that there will be someone capable of compensating them.
• Vicarious liability entails holding one person responsible for the torts committed by another, even if the responsible party did not commit the act themselves. It operates as a form of strict liability, indicating that the defendant is held accountable regardless of fault. The most prevalent scenario of vicarious liability occurs when employers are deemed responsible for their employees' torts committed in the course of employment. While the issue of vicarious liability may seem unjust, as it holds someone not directly at fault accountable, it plays a crucial role in maintaining safety standards and ensuring compensation for victims of employee negligence.