Q: What is strict liability in no fault tort ?

Ans: The concept of strict liability was introduced in the late nineteenth century. The principle originates from the idea of negligence which means having lack of care for any act. In simpler words, it can be explained as a situation where one person has a duty of care towards the other, supposedly a tenant and breach of such duty leads to certain harm to the other person who is the tenant. Where there is negligence on part of the defendant, he or she is liable to pay damages and compensate the aggrieved. In contrast with the concept of strict liability, the defendant or doer is held liable irrespective of presence of any negligence on his part. 

The concept of strict liability can be understood in a more transparent way by checking the application of following essentials in any situation simultaneously:

Dangerous thing

In literal terms, the term dangerous means anything which is likely to cause any sort of harm or damage. The first and foremost essential to constitute an act of strict liability is with the presence of a thing on the land that is dangerous. Such presence of a particular thing is exposed to high risks to people surrounded by it. Examples like electric item, explosives, fire related.
 

Non-natural use of land

The second essential to satisfy the concept laid down above is there must be some kind of uncommon use of land which can lead to harm or danger to people surrounded by it. There is a clear distinction between natural and non-natural use of land which depends on the social conditions where a group of individuals are living in. A natural use of land is when a justifiable amount of water is collected and kept for storage whereas a non-natural use of land is when an immense amount of water is stored like that needed for a reservoir.
 

Escape

It is also essential that the thing which is causing damage to the other has escaped from the area where it was perfectly under the control of its owner. The thing must break free from the confinement which in turn caused damage or unlikely harm to the other person. For example, two wild dogs escaping their house and running away to neighbours house and causing harm, owner having no knowledge of their escape.
 

Foreseeable damage

The damage that is likely to be caused shall be forecasted before its occurrence. Such forecast is very essential to hold an individual liable for harm.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more