Related to vicarious liability: Volenti non fit injuria Vicarious Liability The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship such as Parent and Childemployer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driverto exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence.
The post looks into the essential and exceptions to the rule of strict liability. The post also highlights how the rule of absolute liability evolved. Strict Liability The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher . In the yearthe principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any damage.
Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F.
The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material. Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be answerable for the damaged caused.
The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous.
Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into being. There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict liability.
Essentials of Strict Liability Dangerous Substances: For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes.
Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. For instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, who as a result die.
The defendant will be liable for the loss. But on the other hand, if the cattle belonging to the plaintiff enter the premises of the defendant and eats the poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not be liable. In the judicial pronouncement of Reads v. To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land.
In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-natural use of the land.
Storage of water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the Court. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc.
For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was a natural use of the land. These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a strict liability.
The Court held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such loss. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and foresight.
Act of the Third Party: The third party means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor the defendant has any contract with them or control over their work.
But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible. Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle of violenti non fit injuria.Yale Law School Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship The Morality of Strict Liability.
i The Fault(s) in Negligence Law Professor Alan Calnan ABSTRACT According to conventional wisdom, negligence is a unique tort. It is different from strict liability because it is based on fault. pollution and evaluate the scope of the harmful effect from each source. Thus arose the technical problem, 4 Th e schematic outline, submitted by th previous Special Rap-porteur, R.
Q. Quentin-Baxter, at the Commission's thirty-fourth ses- to the opposition aroused by the concept of strict liability in the Commission and in the Sixth. Other types of tort cases have different ways to measure breach of duty.
In premises liability, Strict liability and statutory negligence per se are restricted to a few areas of tort law, including abnormally dangerous activities and certain types of products liability cases.
The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though the same or similar concept may appear in contexts where the term itself is not used.  Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses: in a speeding case, for example.
BUL USF Ch6: Product and Strict Liability. STUDY. True or False: Courts can apply a consumer expectation test to evaluate the adequacy of a product's design. True. A defect in manufacture occurs when the manufacturer fails to warn customers about the dangerous propensities of its products.