No-Fault Liability in Tort Law: Strict vs. Absolute Liability

Tort law generally requires establishing fault for liability. However, no-fault liability imposes responsibility regardless of negligence or intent, particularly for inherently dangerous activities. Two key concepts are strict and absolute liability.

Strict liability originated with Rylands v Fletcher (1868). It holds that someone who brings a dangerous thing onto their land for non-natural use is liable for its escape and resulting foreseeable harm, even with reasonable care. The elements are a dangerous thing, escape, non-natural land use, and foreseeability of the type of damage. However, Rylands v Fletcher recognized exceptions like plaintiff's fault, act of God, act of a third party, plaintiff's consent, and statutory authority. Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) further clarified that the type of damage must be foreseeable.

Absolute liability emerged in India following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, with M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) as its cornerstone. The Supreme Court deemed strict liability inadequate for hazardous industries causing large-scale harm. Absolute liability dictates that an enterprise engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is strictly and absolutely liable for resulting harm from an accident (like toxic gas escape), without any exceptions. This liability is irrespective of non-natural land use and focuses on the scale and nature of the hazardous activity. The rationale is that such enterprises, operating for profit, have an absolute obligation to the community's safety and must bear the full cost of any harm caused.

The key distinction lies in the exceptions. Strict liability has recognized defenses, while absolute liability, as established in India, offers no such exceptions. Shri Ram Gas Leak Case (1985) reinforced absolute liability for hazardous industries, imposing a non-delegable duty of safety. Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (1989) highlighted the complexities of applying absolute liability in mass disaster scenarios involving multinational corporations.

In conclusion, no-fault liability, through strict and absolute liability, shifts the focus from the defendant's culpability to the inherent risk associated with certain activities. While strict liability provides a framework with specific exceptions, absolute liability, particularly in the Indian context of hazardous industries, adopts a more stringent approach, holding enterprises unequivocally responsible for the harm their operations cause, regardless of fault or external factors. This evolution reflects a greater emphasis on community safety and corporate accountability in the face of potentially catastrophic industrial risks.