Top 9 important case laws on “Liability” under the law of torts | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Understanding Tortious Liability and Key Case Laws

• Definition of Tortious Liability: Tortious liability arises from a breach of a duty established by law towards the general public, where damages are compensated through legal action. It involves wrongful acts causing harm to others.
• Importance of Case Laws: The law of torts, being non-codified, evolves through judicial interpretations and precedents set by cases.
• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868):
  • Introduction to Strict Liability: This case introduced the concept of strict liability, stating that certain inherently dangerous activities hold individuals responsible for damages, regardless of negligence.
  • Case Details: In this instance, a mill owner hired contractors to build reservoirs on his land. Unknown to both parties, old shafts connected to a plaintiff's mine lay undiscovered. When the reservoirs were filled, the shafts collapsed, flooding the plaintiff's mines.
  • Rationale for Imposing Liability: The court justified strict liability due to the foreseeable risks associated with such hazardous activities.

Legal Cases

Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868

• The concept of strict liability was first established by the House of Lords in this particular case. The court observed that certain activities are inherently dangerous, and simply engaging in them imposes a duty on the person carrying them out to compensate for any resulting damage, regardless of their level of care.
• In this case, the defendant, a mill owner, hired contractors to construct reservoirs on his land to provide water for the mill. During the construction, the contractors encountered old shafts on the defendant's land, which were connected to the plaintiff's mine but were not easily identifiable as they appeared to be filled with earth. When the reservoirs were filled, the shafts collapsed, causing flooding in the plaintiff's mines.
• The court ruled that the construction of the reservoirs posed a risk to the defendant, and any resulting mishaps, such as the escape of materials, made the defendant liable for damages.

Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878

• In this case, the court was tasked with determining whether planting a poisonous tree could constitute a non-natural use of the land, thereby making the defendant strictly liable under the principles established in Rylands v. Fletcher. The court concluded in the affirmative, as the tree in question was not of an ordinary nature, and furthermore, its branches extended onto the plaintiff's land. Tragically, the plaintiff's horse died after consuming these branches. Consequently, the defendant was held strictly liable because the risk posed by the tree's presence and its potential harm was foreseeable.

Bolton v. Stone, 1951

• In this case of negligence, the court examined the behavior of a reasonable person and the breach of duty necessary to establish a negligence case.
• The claimant was struck by a ball from a neighboring cricket field and sued. The court noted that the field had a protective arrangement with a 17-foot gap between the ground and the top of the surrounding fence. Since such incidents were rare and precautions were taken, the House of Lords ruled that the cricket club had not breached its duty and was not negligent.

M.C Mehta v. UOI, 1987 (Oleum Gas leak Case)

• In this landmark case, our Hon’ble Supreme Court introduced the principle of Absolute Liability, which is akin to no-fault liability or strict liability but without any exceptions. The case was brought forth by a socio-activist lawyer seeking the closure of Shriram Industries following a devastating oleum gas leak that harmed numerous individuals. 
• The Apex Court, in the Oleum Gas Leak case, established the doctrine of Absolute Liability. According to this principle, if an individual is engaged in an inherently hazardous or dangerous activity and an accident stemming from such activity causes harm, the person would be held absolutely liable, without any exceptions.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI

• In this legal matter, the court applied the principle of absolute liability to safeguard the environment and the lives of individuals impacted by it. An environmentalist organization filed a petition to draw attention to the challenges faced by the residents of village Bichhari in Udaipur, Rajasthan, due to their proximity to a chemical plant.
• Investigations revealed that the plant was discharging untreated toxic wastewater and sludge into the open fields of the village, leading to soil and groundwater pollution. Consequently, the pollution resulted in various diseases and fatalities among the local population. Despite efforts to address the issue in parliament, no concrete actions were taken.
• The court's ruling held the plant accountable for engaging in a hazardous activity that caused harm to numerous individuals. Consequently, the plant was deemed absolutely liable. The court empowered the Central government to determine and retrieve the compensation amount from the responsible parties following a comprehensive assessment.

Indian council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI, 1996

• In this case, the court applied the principle of absolute liability to safeguard the environment and the lives of individuals affected by it. An environmentalist organization filed a petition to bring attention to the challenges faced by the residents of village Bichhari in Udaipur, Rajasthan, due to their proximity to a chemical plant. Investigations revealed that the plant was discharging untreated toxic wastewater and sludge into the open fields of the village, leading to soil and groundwater contamination. This pollution resulted in various diseases and fatalities among the local population. Despite efforts to address the issue in Parliament, no satisfactory resolution was achieved.
• The court determined that the plant's operations constituted a hazardous activity, leading to harm to numerous individuals. Consequently, the plant owners were held absolutely liable. The court delegated authority to the Central government to assess and recover compensation from the plant owners for the damage caused. This decision aimed to ensure accountability and provide relief to the affected communities.

P & O Steam Navigation Co. V. Secretary of State, 1861

• The court ruled in this pre-constitution case that the doctrine of "King can do no wrong" applied to the East India Company. This meant that one couldn't be held liable for harm caused by actions performed under sovereign authority.
• An accident occurred where the servants of the plaintiff company were at fault due to the actions of the government's servants. However, since the government servants were on duty carrying out sovereign functions, the court granted them immunity from any tortious liability.

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, 1962

• This landmark case post-Independence was the first dealing with the doctrine of Sovereign immunity in India. The incident involved a government jeep driver owned by Rajasthan causing injury to pedestrians due to negligence.
• The defense of sovereign immunity was raised, but the court rejected it, stating that merely driving a government vehicle does not grant sovereign immunity. The court emphasized the importance of justice over outdated feudalistic notions, especially in a state with a welfare role.

Kasturila V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965

• In this case, the plaintiff was arrested by three policemen on suspicion of carrying stolen gold and silver. While the plaintiff was released on bail and given back the silver, the gold was kept by a head constable who later absconded to Pakistan after misappropriating it.
• The plaintiff sued the Government as the gold was seized by a government employee during the course of his employment, highlighting issues of accountability and responsibility in such situations.

Cassidy v. Minister of Health (1951)

• The case discusses the concept of vicarious liability, where a master can be held responsible for the actions of their servant during employment.
• The court examined a situation where a medical practitioner's negligence caused the claimant's fingers to become stiff in the defendant's hospital.
• It was debated whether the negligent doctor could be considered an employee, and the court affirmed this, emphasizing that even specialized workers remain employees if the power to hire and fire lies with the employer.
• Therefore, the defendant was held vicariously liable for the actions of the doctor.

Conclusion

Indeed, the discussion of various tortious liabilities such as strict liability, absolute liability, and vicarious liability through the aforementioned case laws highlights the evolving nature of the law of torts. It's crucial to recognize that tort law develops through case laws, and this evolution will persist, as noted by Justice Bhagwati: "We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized country." This emphasizes the necessity of adapting legal principles to address emerging challenges, particularly in the context of a rapidly changing industrial landscape. As society evolves, so too must the law, ensuring that it remains relevant and effective in providing justice and resolving disputes.