MEANING
A tort is a civil wrong committed against a person or property. There are certain liabilities under the tort law that make a person liable for the acts committed by another person.
Vicarious means acting or done for another. Thus vicarious liability in the law of torts means liability because of the actions of someone else. FOR EXAMPLE, the liability of a master because of the acts of the servant.
KINDS OF LIABILITY UNDER TORT LAW
THE TWO KINDS OF LIABILITIES UNDER TORT LAW ARE:
- STRICT OR ABSOLUTE LIABILITY.
- VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
STRICT OR ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
In some torts, the defendant is liable even though the plaintiff’s harm occurred without intention or negligence on the defendant’s part. Hence, a defendant can be made liable even without fault.
Even in India, we follow the concept of absolute liability as laid down in MC MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA by Justice Bhagwati.
CASE LAW: In the case of RYLANDS VS FLETCHER, it was held that if a person brings or accumulates anything on his land which if escaped may cause damage to its neighbours; he does so at his liability, however careful he may have been and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent damage. Then, he will be held liable for such an act.
Strict liability and absolute liability function under the ‘no-fault liability’ principle, which says that if a person/enterprise brings any hazardous/dangerous substance of non-natural use in its premises and if that substance escapes and does any mischief, then whatever loss the other party suffers that person/enterprise shall be made liable for it
RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY
The rule of strict liability was propounded in 1868 in RYLAND VS FLETCHER.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Rylands and Fletcher lived in a neighbourhood.
- Rylands had mines in his land, while Fletcher had a mill on his land.
- Fletcher required a huge amount of energy to run the mill, so he decided to construct a reservoir.
- To construct the reservoir, independent contractors and engineers were appointed by Fletcher.
- No attention was paid to mine shafts while constructing the reservoir.
- When the reservoir was ready and the water was filled, the water reached the mines of Rylands through the mine shafts, due to which he suffered heavy losses and sued Fletcher for the same.
- Fletcher defended by stating that the negligence was by independent contractors and engineers.
- In the judgement delivered by the House of Lords, Fletcher was held liable for the entire loss suffered by Rylands.
PRINCIPLE OF NO-FAULT LIABILITY
According to the rule, if any person brings any dangerous thing on his land for non-natural use and that dangerous thing has the ability to escape on its own and causes harm, such person shall be liable for it even though there was no negligence on his part. This is known as the rule of strict liability. Such things may be any harmful gas, water, or chemicals.
ESSENTIAL OF STRICT LIABILITY
THE THREE ESSENTIAL POINTS REGARDING STRICT LIABILITY ARE:
- Some dangerous thing must have been brought on one’s land.
- There must be non-natural use of land.
- The dangerous thing bought must escape and cause damage.
EXCEPTION TO RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY
HERE ARE THE FIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY.
- PLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULT
The classic example would be PONTING VS NOAKES. In this case, the plaintiff’s horse intruded into the defendant’s land and consumed the leaves of some wild tree and died after that. The defendant was not held liable as the damage would not have occurred if the plaintiff’s horse had not intruded on the defendant’s land. The rule of strict liability would not apply as there was no escape.
- ACT OF GOD
Any natural event which is not predictable, controllable or preventable, damage caused by such event cannot be held liable for. In NICHOLAS VS MARSLAND 1876, due to heavy rainfall defendant’s artificial lake was flooded, due to which the plaintiff’s four bridges washed away. The plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages. It was held that the defendant was not liable as the accident was caused by an act of God.
- VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA / MUTUAL BENEFIT
If two persons with common consent bring any non-natural thing for the mutual benefit and such thing causes damage, either of them cannot claim damages from each other.
- ACT OF STRANGER
If any damage has been caused due to the act of any stranger on whom the defendant had no control, the defendant will not be liable under this rule.
- STATUTORY AUTHORITY
An act done under the authority of a statute is a defence to an action for tort.
RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
The rule of absolute liability was laid down in MC MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- A company named Union Carbide set up a plant in Bhopal.
- The plant manufactured pesticide and such products.
- On the night of 2nd December 1984, the plant leaked 40 tons of dangerous gas (methyl isocyanate).
- The adjoining area around the plant became a gas chamber because of which 3000 people died, and various others were injured.
- During the investigation, it was found that all the safety systems of the plant were non-functional.
- The Supreme Court decided not to follow the rule of strict liability as this would result in such industries escaping the liability for the damage caused and lost lives.
Strict liability is a concept of the 18th century. With the passage of time and evolving power of science, the rule of absolute liability was for the first time applied in the case of MC MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA, also known as the OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE.
The principle laid down in the MC MEHTA case by Supreme Court is as follows:
“Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident, and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in RYLANDS VS FLETCHER.”
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
- In strict liability, any person can be made liable, whereas, in absolute liability, only an enterprise can be made liable (commercial objective).
- In strict liability, the escape of a dangerous thing is necessary, whereas, in absolute liability, an enterprise can be made responsible even without an escape.
- Certain exceptions are available to a person in strict liability, whereas no defences are available in absolute liability.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is a liability where the master is liable for the tort of his servant, principal for his agent, partner for another partner and an employer for an employee.
The legal maxim Qui Facit per alium Facit per se also applies to the concept of vicarious liability, which means he who acts for another, acts for himself.
FOUR IMPORTANT KINDS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY ARE:
- Principal-Agent Relationship.
- Partners.
- Master and Servant.
- Employer and Independent Contractor.
PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP
An agent is a person who acts on behalf of the principal. Therefore, if an agent does any wrongful act in the course of his employment, then the master will be held liable for the acts committed by the agent.
Suppose the agent performs some activity in the absence of the principal, which favours the principal, even though the principal does not know this act. In that case, he will still be held responsible as the agent acted for the principal’s benefit.
PARTNERS
All the partners are liable to the same extent as the guilty partner. In Hamlyn vs Houston, one of the two partners bribed the plaintiff’s clerk, persuading him to provide confidential information about his employer’s firm. The court decided that both partners were responsible for the tort committed by only one of them.
MASTER AND SERVANT
Master will be held liable for the tort or wrongful act committed by his servant during the course of employment. Obviously, the servant will also be held liable.
A master is liable not only for the acts that the servant has committed but also for the acts done by him that are not explicitly authorised.
Principal of RESPONDENT SUPERIOR will be applicable here, which says, LET THE PRINCIPAL BE LIABLE.
The master is liable even though the servant acted against the expressed instructions.
EMPLOYER AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Ordinarily, an employer is not liable for the tort committed by an independent contractor. But there are certain conditions where even the employer will be held liable.
- The employer is liable only if he has committed a tort.
- When the employer authorises him to commit a tort.
- In torts of strict liability.
- Negligence of an independent contractor.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE
Even the state has certain liabilities, and now let us study the position of vicarious liability in India and England.
POSITION IN ENGLAND
At common law, a crown could not be sued in tort, but as per the CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1947, even the crown is liable for the torts committed by its servants.
POSITION IN INDIA
In India, the state can be held liable under vicarious liability, and it could claim immunity only if the act committed is a sovereign function.