What is the difference between strict liability and absolute liability?

Asked by: Blake Larson  |  Last update: June 21, 2022
Score: 4.9/5 (14 votes)

Strict liability, also known as absolute liability, is the legal doctrine that assigns responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person or company that was responsible for the damage or injury was not at fault or negligent.

Is there any 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.

What you mean by absolute liability?

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea).

What is an example of strict absolute liability?

In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.

How is it different from strict liability?

The exception to the Strict Liability wouldn't be considered. This is what makes Absolute Liability different from that of Strict Liability. A person liable for Strict Liability can claim for the exceptions as laid in Strict Liability but Absolute Liability is one which does not have any exceptions.

Strict Liability and Absolute Liability | Law of Torts

26 related questions found

What do you understand by strict or absolute liability in criminal law?

In the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the defendant wouldn't be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are provided to the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no matter what.

How is absolute liability different from the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Applies to Non-Natural and Natural uses of land: The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher applies only to the non-natural use of land but the new rule of absolute liability applies to even the natural use of land.

What is strict liability principle?

The Strict Liability principle is also called as 'No Fault Liability'. This is contradictory to the general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held liable for commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and the defendant himself is unable to disprove it.

What is an example of a strict liability tort?

In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals.

What is strict liability in tort Rylands v Fletcher?

To solve the issues caused by this rule, the House of Lords in Rylands v/s Fletcher propounded a new rule called as "Rule of Strict liability" or "No Fault Liability". According to this rule, a person can be held liable even there is no negligence on his part.

Why is Rylands v Fletcher strict liability?

It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

Is Rylands v Fletcher a strict liability?

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is regarded as a specific type of nuisance, a form of strict liability, where the defendant may be liable without having been negligent.

What is the rule of Rylands and Fletcher?

Abstract. This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault.

What is the difference between private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher?

Private nuisance must have an element of continuation and damages will not be recoverable for physical injury. The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a new tort which provided for strict liability of defendants in certain nuisance-related situations.

Is strict liability applicable in India?

The Supreme Court in Modern Cultivators did not rule out the existence of strict liability under Indian law, but merely expanded the exceptions to the principal's application. However, the Supreme Court did not go so far as to overturn the principle of strict liability in Modern Cultivators.

What is the exception to the rule of Rylands v Fletcher?


This exception is based on the principle of volenti non-fit injuria, which states that if a person puts himself in a circumstance where harm may result, being well aware of the danger, they may not be able to make a claim against the party in error.

What is the significance of the Rylands case?

The Rylands court considers the manner in which the Defendant used the land and concluded such use was “non-natural” what modern courts have described as inconsistent land use, i.e., when a party inflicts non-reciprocal risks on another.

Who won the case of Rylands v Fletcher?

The court of Exchequer Chamber held Rylands liable for the damage done to the Fletcher. The court held that the defendants owed a duty of care towards the risk, as they were aware of the fact that if that quantity of water would escape, it would be harmful.

What are the essential of absolute liability?

Essential Conditions In Absolute Liability

It can be poisonous gases, fumes, pollutants, water reservoir, explosives etc. To held liable the defendant, there should be an escape of a substance or a thing that caused harm or damage from the land of the defendant or the land which was under the control of the defendant.

Who gave the principle of absolute liability?

The rule of Absolute liability was laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C. Mehta V UOI2 and Bhopal Gas Leak3 case.

What are the three elements of private nuisance?

To prove a private nuisance has occurred (or is occurring) the following must be present:
  • Continuous interference;
  • Unlawful or unreasonable interference;
  • Interference of the use or enjoyment of land or some right over it.

Can a tenant claim in private nuisance?

Claims for private nuisance can be made by owners of the land, those with exclusive possession of the land or those occupying the land as a tenant or licensee. A benefit of this procedure is that an application, properly made, does not carry the same adverse costs risks as civil proceedings.

What are the 3 types of strict liability torts?

In addition, you should be able to recognize and cite some examples of the three categories of liability: animals, dangerous acts and product liability.