Strict and Absolute Liability Questions and Answers

Q: Which one of the following has been laid down as basis of responsibility by the rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher ?

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) lays down strict liability. A person who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all the damage that results from its escape, without proof of negligence. It is therefore not fault liability, not conditional liability, and not insurance liability, which depends on a contract of insurance rather than on the rule. Blackburn J. laid down the rule in the Exchequer Chamber, and the House of Lords affirmed it with the limitation of a non-natural use of the land.

Q: When an injury is caused by the act of an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise is absolutely liable for the injury because1. it has not taken reasonable care.2. the enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from the activity.3. it is considered as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.4. it is difficult to prove lack of care on the part of enterprise. Select the right code :

The reasons that are correct are 2 and 3.In M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm results from it (2). Such an enterprise must also bear the loss as a part of the social cost of carrying on the activity (3).The liability is not based on a lack of reasonable care, which is why statement 1 is wrong, and it is not a rule based on the difficulty of proving a lack of care. The options that include 1 or 4 are therefore wrong.

11.

Rule of absolute liability was propounded by

A.Justice Bhagwati
B.Justice Sodhi
C.Justice Ahmadi
D.Justice Kuldeep Singh

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: A

The rule of absolute liability was propounded by Justice Bhagwati.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum gas leak case, 1987) Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati said that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is absolutely liable to compensate for harm, with none of the exceptions of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

Justices Sodhi, Ahmadi and Kuldeep Singh decided other important cases in environmental and tort law, but the rule of absolute liability is linked with Bhagwati.

Discuss in Forum

12.

Which one of the defence to strict liability is based on the maxim, volenti non fit injuria ?

A.Consent of the plaintiff
B.Act of God
C.Act of Third Party
D.Statutory Authority

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: A

The defence based on the maxim volenti non fit injuria is the consent of the plaintiff.

The maxim means that to a willing person no injury is done. If the plaintiff agreed to the risk or to the presence of the danger, he cannot complain of it in an action on strict liability.

Act of God, act of a third party and statutory authority are also defences to strict liability, but each rests on a different ground, such as an event beyond human control or the authority of a statute, and not on consent.

Discuss in Forum

13.

The Rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ was laid down in the case

A.M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India
B.Madras Railways Co. Vs. Zamidar
C.K. Nagireddi Vs. State of A.P.
D.Minu B. Mehta Vs. Balakrishna

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: A

The rule of absolute liability, which has no exceptions and is wider than the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, was laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Oleum gas leak case from Delhi. Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar dealt with the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher in an Indian setting, and K. Nagireddi and Minu B. Mehta are on other points of tort law. The answer is M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.

Discuss in Forum

14.

The Rule of Absolute Liability is subject to

A.All the exceptions mentioned in the rule of Rylands vs. Fletcher
B.Half of the exceptions mentioned in the rule of Rylands vs. Fletcher
C.None of the exceptions mentioned in the rule of Rylands vs. Fletcher
D.All the exceptions mentioned in rule of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: C

The rule of absolute liability is subject to none of the exceptions of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, option C. The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Oleum gas leak case, 1987) laid down that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable to compensate those harmed, and this liability is not subject to the exceptions of Rylands v. Fletcher, such as act of God or the act of a stranger. Options A and B keep all or half of the exceptions, and option D refers to the rule of M.C. Mehta itself, which is circular.

Discuss in Forum

15.

Which one of the following has been laid down as basis of responsibility by the rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher ?

A.Fault liability
B.Conditional liability
C.Strict liability
D.Insurance liability

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: C

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) lays down strict liability. A person who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all the damage that results from its escape, without proof of negligence. It is therefore not fault liability, not conditional liability, and not insurance liability, which depends on a contract of insurance rather than on the rule. Blackburn J. laid down the rule in the Exchequer Chamber, and the House of Lords affirmed it with the limitation of a non-natural use of the land.

Discuss in Forum

16.

In which of the following cases, the rule of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court of India was followed ?

A.Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 SC 1446
B.Klaus Mittelbachert Vs. East India Hotels Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 Del.201
C.Both (A) and (B) above.
D.None of the above.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: C

The key takes both cases as following the rule of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court, which is option C. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India applied the rule of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, and the Delhi decision in Klaus Mittelbachert also followed it.

Options A and B each name only one of the cases, and D denies both, so they are wrong on the key.

Discuss in Forum

17.

The rule of 'absolute liability' was laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the following case :

A.Rylands Vs Fletcher
B.M.C. Mehta (Sriram Food and Fertilizer Co.) Vs Union of India
C.M.C. Mehta (C.N.G. Fuel case) Vs Union of India
D.None of the above

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: B

Absolute liability was laid down in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (the Sriram Food and Fertilizer case).

After the leak of oleum gas in Delhi, the Supreme Court in 1986 and 1987 held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous industry is absolutely liable for harm, with no exceptions such as act of God, a rule wider than that in Rylands v. Fletcher.

Rylands v. Fletcher is the English case of strict liability, and the C.N.G. fuel case dealt with pollution from vehicles. The ruling went further than the English rule by making the liability absolute and by tying the compensation to the size of the enterprise.

Discuss in Forum

18.

Assertion (A) : In India, defendants collecting water in reservoirs have not been held liable for damage caused due to the escape of water from these reservoirs in absence of negligence.

Reason (R) : The rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands Vs Fletcher case has been held to be not applicable in India.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below ;
Codes :

A.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
B.Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
C.(A) is true, but (R) is false.
D.(A) is false, but (R) is true.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: A

Indian courts, starting with the Madras High Court in cases involving tanks and reservoirs that are part of the country's irrigation tradition, have held that a person collecting water for irrigation is not liable for its escape without negligence. The reason given is that the rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher does not apply to such natural user in India, given its climate and water economy. The reason therefore explains the assertion, and both are true.

Discuss in Forum

19.

When an injury is caused by the act of an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise is absolutely liable for the injury because

1. it has not taken reasonable care.
2. the enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from the activity.
3. it is considered as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.
4. it is difficult to prove lack of care on the part of enterprise. Select the right code :

A.1 and 2 are correct.
B.1 and 4 are correct.
C.1 and 3 are correct.
D.2 and 3 are correct.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: D

The reasons that are correct are 2 and 3.

In M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm results from it (2). Such an enterprise must also bear the loss as a part of the social cost of carrying on the activity (3).

The liability is not based on a lack of reasonable care, which is why statement 1 is wrong, and it is not a rule based on the difficulty of proving a lack of care. The options that include 1 or 4 are therefore wrong.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Strict and Absolute Liability Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Strict and Absolute Liability Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications