6.4 Types of liabilities in tort

1. Strict Liability

It is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. It is basically a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant) responsible for its actions, without the plaintiff having to prove the negligence or fault on the part of defendant.

In Rylands v. Fletcher case, the defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent contractor. There were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on adjoining land.
The defendant did not know about the shaft and had not been negligent, but he was held liable. This is also called the ‘No fault‘ liability. In the given case, the liability recognised was ‘strict liability‘ i.e. even if the defendant was not negligent or did not cause any intentional harm, he could still be liable under the rule.

 

Essentials of strict liability

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should be there:

Dangerous Things
According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one’s land arises only when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing was large water body (reservoir). The rule is also applied to gas, electricity, vibration, sewage, explosive, etc.
Escape
For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant. The case of Read v. Lyons and Co, is an example of no escape and hence no liability. In this case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory, while she was performing her duties inside the defendant’s remises, a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded and she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant.

1. It was held that the defendant was not liable because there was no escape of thing outside the defendant’s premises. So, the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this case.
2. Non-natural Use of Land
   There should be non-natural usage of land to make the defendant liable. Like in Rylands v. Fletcher case, collecting large body of water is considered to be non-natural use of land.
   In Sochacki v. Sas, it has been held that having a fire place is natural use of land. Even if there is escape of fire from the fire place and the plaintiff suffers harm, the defendants were not held liable as there was no non-natural use of land.

 

Exceptions to the rule of strict liability

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognised by Rylands v. Fletcher and some later cases:

1. Act of God
2. Consent of the plaintiff
3. Act of third party
4. Statutory authority
5. Plaintiff’s own default

1. Vicarious Liability

The rule of vicarious liability imposes liability on one person for the act done by another person. Normally, a person who has done the wrongful act should alone be made liable for the injurious consequences arising out of it, but the principle of vicarious liability is an exception to it. In order to held a person liable for the act done by another person, it is necessary that there should be a certain kind of relationship between the two persons and the wrongful act done should be, in a certain way, connected with that relationship. The common examples of such relations include principal-agent relationship, master-servant relationship and partners.

1. Principal-agent relationship

Where an act is authorized by the principal and done by the agent, both of them are liable. The authority to do the act may be express or implied. When an agent does a wrongful act in the ordinary course of the performance of his duties as an agent, the principal shall be held liable for such an act. However, there is no doubt, that the agent is also liable for his act. Thus, their liability is joint and several.

In Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co. (1912), Mrs Lloyd, who owned two cottages but was not satisfied with the returns, there from, approached the office of Grace, Smith and Co., a firm of solicitors to consult them about the matter of her property. The managing clerk of the company attended her and advised her to sell the two cottages and invest the money in a better way. She was asked to sign two documents which were supposed to be sale deeds. In fact, the documents that got signed were gift deeds in the name of the managing clerk himself. He then disposed of the property and misappropriated the proceeds.

2. Partners

The relationship between partners is that of principal and agent. Therefore, the rules of the law of agency apply in case of their liability also. For the tort committed by any partner in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, the other entire partners are liable to the same extent, as the guilty partner. The liability of each partner is joint and several.
In Hamlyn v. Houston and Company, one of the two partners of the defendant’s firm, acting within the general scope of his authority as a partner, bribed the plaintiff’s clerk and induced him to make a breach of contract with his employer (plaintiff) by divulging secrets relating to his employer’s business. It was held that both the partners of the firm were liable for this wrongful act (including breach of contract) committed by only one of them.

1. Master and servant relationshipIf a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the master is liable for it. Though, the servant is also liable. The wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be the act of the master as well. The doctrine of liability of the master for act of his servant is passed on the maxim respondeat superior, which means ‘let the principal be liable’ and it puts the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself.

   It also derives validity from the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se, which means ‘he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.’

   There are two essentials which should be satisfied by a plaintiff before he can succeed against the defendant, fixing vicarious liability on him for any wrongful act done by the latter’s servant, which are as follows:

   1. 1. He must establish that the relation of master and servant subsisted between the defendant and actual wrong doer.
      2. He must also prove that the wrongful act was done by the servant whilst he was engaged in the course of employment of the defendant.

    

   1. Occupiers Liability

   At common law the duties of an occupier were cast in a descending scale to four different kinds of persons. For example:

   1. a) The highest duty of care was owed by the occupier to one who entered in pursuance of a contract with him e.g. a guest in a hotel. In that case there was an implied warranty that the premises were as safe as reasonable care and skill could make them.
   2. b) A lower duty was owed to the invitee i.e. a person who without any contract entered on business of interest both to himself and the occupier e.g. a customer coming into a shop to view the wares he was entitled to expect that the occupier should prevent damage from unusual danger of which knew or ought to have know.
   3. c) Lower still was the duty of the licensee i.e. a person who entered with the occupiers express or implied permission but without any community of interest with the occupier; the occupiers duty towards him was to warn him of any concealed danger or trap of which he actually knew.
   4. d) Finally, there was the trespasser to whom there was owed only a duty to abstain from deliberate or reckless injury.

   Occupiers liability deals with the liability of an occupier of premises and extends to immovable property as open land house, railway stations and bridges as well as movable structures like ships, gangways or even vehicles although  lawyers prefer to treat  injury in the latter as falling with common law negligence