Strict and Absolute Liability

The US court let off Union Carbide Corporation of its liability in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, citing that its sister concern was responsible and not the parent body. Under the principle of Strict Liability or no fault liability, laid down in the case of Ryland v Fletcher, any person who brings any dangerous object into his land shall be responsible if that thing somehow escapes and causes damage to any other party. However, under this principle, liability can be successfully avoided in cases of exceptions such as, Act of God (vis major), plaintiff’s own fault, act of stranger, when the plaintiff has given his authority and in cases of statutory authority.

However, in the principle  of Absolute Liability laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India (Sriram fertilizers industries case), the various exceptions of the principle of strict liability were discarded. The court formulated the principle so as to make responsible any person who is responsible for bringing any hazardous substance into such premises from where it escapes and causes damage. This principle has found wide application in the cases of environmental pollution.

In the case of Union Carbide India Ltd v Union of India (Bhopal gas tragedy case), leakage of methyl isocyanide gas killed thousands of people. According to the Indian government, the corporation is subject to the principle of absolute liability and bound to pay compensation to the victims of the incident.