INTRODUCTION:-
The term “Tort” comes from the Latin expression Tortum which means twisted or crooked. Tort
in the legal sense is alike to the word wrong. The term “Tort” was first introduced by the
Norman jurists. Basically in English courts the the term Tort was used in those cases where
remedy was decided by the courts. Therefore tort consists of those wrongs which violates the
rights of other persons for which the law provides remedies for the damages occurred. The
remedy provided in law of torts is in the form of unliquidated damages. It is the duty of every
individual to to respect the legal rights of the other persons living in the society. If a person
violates the rights of others he does a wrongful act and if there is a damage caused by his acts
then the other person can file a case against him for the damages. It is very difficult to give a
proper and concise definition of Law of torts because torts signify violation of enormous
diversity of rights and duties. The law of torts based on the common law of England which is
unwritten and uncodified. It is still an developing law and courts are expanding its horizon
continuously with time by recognizing new torts.
In Law of torts ,Strict liability is defined as the situation when a person is liable for harm caused
even though he/she may not be negligent or have no intentions to cause the damages. This
principle of making a person liable without having any fault is known as “The Rule of Strict
Liability”. This rule is also known as “No fault Liability” rule. This rule of Strict Liability was
1
first laid down in the decision of House of Lords in Ryland’s v.Fletcher , and secondly in the
2
decision of the honourable Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . There are
many exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability so it is called as strict liability rather than called as
rule of Absolute Liability. Strict liability is also known as “Liability without Fault”.
In Strict liability, firstly we talk about what is liability?
Liability is defined as a bond which exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of a wrong .
Liability is a term derived from a Latin word “Vinculum juris” which means “a legal bound” or
“a bond of law”. In Roman Law “Vinculum juris” is defined as a bond or legal obligation by
which one party is bound to another to do something which is according to law. In civil law
(mainly in torts and contract) many theorists described a fundamental feature of obligation which
is by the existence of legal tie, the vinculum juris creates between the two persons. In most of the
civilised societies the relations between the state and an individual are governed by the laws
formulated or laws made by the state. These rules made by the state tells us about what to be
done, what not to be done and what is entitled to be done. These laws also lays down the duties
and rights of an individual. A branch of these rules is wrong. When a person commits wrong , he
is said to be liable therefore liability is a condition of a person who has commited a wrong.
Liability arises from a breach of duty . Liability is something which a person must suffer
1
(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
2
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086
resulting from his failure to fulfil his duty. A person has one’s own choice to choose a duty to
perform but he does not have choice to choose liability arises from the breach of duty.
There are many definitions given by legal scholars which are:
SALMOND defined Liability “is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and
3
the remedy of the wrong has more often been said to have arisen out of contract or delict”.
According to MARKY: “the word liability is used to describe the condition of a person who has
a duty to perform”.
AUSTIN prefers to call Liability as imputability. To quote him “these certain forbearances,
commissions or acts , together with such of their consequences as it was the purpose of duties to
avert are imputable to the persons who have forborne, omitted or acted.Or the plight or
predicament of the persons who have forborne, omitted or acts, is styled imputability”.
There are many types of Liabilities which are civil and criminal liabilities, remedial and penal
liabilities, strict and absolute liabilities.
In, Civil liabilities there is an enforcement of rights of plaintiff against the defendants in the civil
proceedings. Generally, Civil liabilities give arises to certain civil proceedings whose main
purpose is the enforcement of certain rights which were claimed by the plaintiff against the
defendant.There are many examples of civil proceedings, some of then are : restoration of
property, recovery of damages, specific performance of a contract, actions for recovery of debt,
issueing an injuction against the injury. Civil liabilities arises in the cases of Assault- which is
threatning to commit battery, In Battery- which is hurting someone physically, defamation cases,
malicious prosecution and many more. The remedies in civil liabilities are in the form of
damages, like a decree of divorce, payment of debt, delivery of property or possession, injuctions
for performance of specific act. But Criminal liabilities are liabilities to punish a person in
crimimal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, one party is state. The remedies given in
criminal liabilities are in the form of fine, imprisonment or death or fine and imprisonment both.
In many cases of civil and criminal liabilities the remedy given is payment of fines or in some
cases both in criminal and civil liabilities the remedy given is in the form of pnishment or
imprisonment. Basically criminal liability is measured on the basis of intention , motive involved
in commiting the crime and the character of the offender and the magnitude of offence
committed.
There are different views regarding civil liabilities and criminal liabilities by Austin and
Salmond:
3
SALMOND:Jurisprudenc (12th Ed.) P.349
AUSTIN says “an offence which is pursued at the discretion of injured party or his
representative, is a civil injury.An offence which is pursued by the sovereign or by the
subordinates of sovereign is a crime . All absolute obligations are enforced criminally”.
SALMOND says “ the distinction between civil and criminal wrong is based on any different in
the nature of the right infringed, but on a difference in nature of the remedy applied”.
In civil and criminal liabilities some points of distinction are not well founded , as there are
some crimes which are against the society like breach of contract made by an individual made
with the state but it is not considered as a crime and considered as a civil wrong and there are
some crimes which are considered as criminal like disobedience of injuction given by the court.
Penal liabilities are basically those liabilities in which the wrongdoer gets punishment as
imprisonment but in Remedial liabilities the defendant is orderd to pay compensation to the
plaintiff for the loss or harm occurred. Remedial liabilities basically woks on the principle or
maxim of “ubi jus ibi remedium” which means there is a right , there is a remedy but the penal
liabilities woks on the principle of “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” which means the act
cannot made a person guilty unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind.
Then came what is Strict liability and Absolute liability??
Generally a person is held liable when there is a negligence on his part which infringes the right
of others but there are exceptions to this rule of liability, in some cases a person is held liable for
his acts which are neither done negligently nor intentionally and even did efforts to advert the
event to happen. This rule of liability is known as “Rule of Strict liability” or No Fault liability”.
Basically in simple sense, Strict liability is a term used to describe forms of liabilities that donot
depend upon proof of fault and where a defendant is held liable for the unforseeable harm that is
caused even after taking all reasonable care to avoid the harm, in other words he is held liable
liable for the harm caused irrespective of negligence or carefulness. The rule of Strict Liabilty is
laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher – In this case , The House of Lords laid down the rule that a
person is liable for the
