Strict liability in india. Corporate Criminal Liability 2019-02-26
Strict liability in india Rating:
7,6/10
888
reviews
Absolute liability
Ø Non-natural use of land: Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to non-natural use of land but storing it in huge quantity like that in a reservoir amounts to non-natural use of the land Rylands vs. It held the appellant were liable for the offences. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is one of the most devastating accidents in the history. It traces the evolution of the doctrine of strict liability in the landmark case of Rylands v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878 4 Ex. Finally, risk can be reduced or even non-existent with reasonable care.
The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defence of a mistake of fact is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defence. The Board however, not satisfied with the reply of the industry, directed its closure. For instance, in the case of Nichols v Marsland, this defence was successfully pleaded. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. After the ruling put forward by the Supreme Court of California in the matter of Greenman v. An electric wire had snapped and fallen on the road.
Evolution of the Strict Liability in India Archives
The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no matter what. Due to this leakage, one advocate and several others had died. One or more elements are enough. Plaintiff's injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. § Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant: Where the act or escape of the dangerous thing was for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff, the defendant will not be held liable. The appellant appealed to High Court, Madras.
Concept of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
The Court of Appeals held that the Church was not strictly liable for Mr. The strict liability doctrine dates back to the famous 1868 English case Rylands v. But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability. If the snake creeps out of the house and bites your neighbor, you will be held responsible even though you did not let the snake out.
Whittling Down Of Strict Liablity For Suppliers Under The Nuclear Power Sector
In India, this rule was formulated in the case of M. . In India Mens Rea is not a requirement unless statute expressly requires so or by necessary implication the object of act so demands. The Supreme Court initiated instant action and ordered the Central Government and the Pollution Control Board to constitute strict measures against the said industries. On the other hand, when a festival is organized and the display of fireworks causes damages to the crowd, the organizers will be liable since the display will not be deemed to be conducted for the benefit of all. In addition, you should be able to recognize and cite some examples of the three categories of liability: animals, dangerous acts and product liability.
Vicarious Liability & Rules Of Strict And Absolute Liability
For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community. R 1997 Delhi 201 single judge : In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the swimming pool of the five-star restaurant. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 This act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is involved. This rule ignored all the exceptions in the Rylands v Fletcher case. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F.
Whereas the rule of absolute liability held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident. Fletcher will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises for the rule requires escape of the thing, which causes harm from the premises. Yuba Power Products, Inc, it was construed that any entity involved in the chain of distribution for a defective product may be held liable for injuries caused by the defect. Since this incident, McDonald's settled with Leibeck for an undisclosed amount of money. It is in the law. Say you owned an exotic Python.
What does have to pan out is whether using a quarry to discharge a firearm is considered abnormally dangerous. So much damage was done that he was hospitalized for over a week. Although they are not particularly aggressive, they will attack if cornered. If the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Broadly speaking, both terms mean liability without fault. The information may not apply to your unique situation, and is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. Thus Shriram is engaged in an activity which has the potential to invade the right to life of large sections of people.
However, the Bill was not passed but lapsed. Laura Howell Linton 7, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in a plain and lucid manner that doctrine of Strict Product Liability does not exist in India. The case seems rather cut and dry. But it may be the intention of the Legislature, in order to guard against the happening of the forbidden thing, to impose a liability upon a principal even though he does not know of it, and is not a party to the forbidden act done by his servant. Consent Of The Plaintiff In this exception, there is no common benefit to the defendant and the plaintiff, as in the case of volenti non fit injuria.
These include the making, transportation, and disposal of explosives or toxic chemicals, blasting and demolition on construction sites, and owning certain exotic or dangerous animals. However, the Rules are silent with regards to section 17 b or section 17 c of the Act. Statutory Authority An act done under the authority of the statute is a very strong defence to an action for tort. Related strict liability principles also may apply to products liability and even certain crimes. Based upon his principles, there were certain qualifications given to decide whether a liability is strict liability or not. Otherwise, he will be held responsible.
