Strict and Absolute Liability Questions and Answers

Q: The case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher deals with :

Rylands v Fletcher deals with non-natural use of land.In this 1868 House of Lords case, water from the defendants' reservoir burst through old mine shafts and flooded the plaintiff's mine. The rule laid down is that a person who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all the damage it causes if it escapes, even without negligence. Lord Cairns added that the rule applies to a non-natural use of the land.The manufacturer's liability to consumers is Donoghue v Stevenson. The case did not turn on negligence or on a contractor's acts; liability was strict.

Q: The principle of "No Fault" Liability is coined in the landmark judgment given in :

The key's answer is Shivaji Dayanu Patil v Vatschala Uttam More.In this 1991 case the Supreme Court interpreted Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which made the owner of a vehicle liable to pay fixed compensation for death or permanent disablement in a road accident without the claimant having to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default. The Court explained this as a scheme of 'no fault' liability and gave the provision a wide, beneficial reading.Rylands v Fletcher established strict liability for escapes from land, Cundy v Lindsay is a contract case on mistake as to identity, and Rita Devi (2000) concerned whether a murder in the course of a vehicle theft was an accident.

Q: Consider the following statements as true or false :(I) A circus company keeps wild animals and trained them. One of them escapes and causes injury to a spectator, company is not liable.(II) A person who brings and keeps any dangerous things, keeps it at his risk, if it escapes damages, he is liable.

Statement (I) is false but (II) is true.Statement II is the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): a person who for his own purposes brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes keeps it at his peril, and is liable for the damage caused by its escape even without negligence.Statement I is false. A keeper of animals of a dangerous species, such as the wild animals of a circus, is strictly liable for the harm they cause if they escape or attack, whatever precautions were taken; in Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus (1957) a circus was held liable for injury caused by its elephant. So the company is liable, which rules out every option calling Statement I true.

Q: The rule of absolute liability was first laid down by :

The key's answer is Justice Blackburn in 1868.The rule of no-fault liability for the escape of dangerous things was formulated by Blackburn J in Rylands v. Fletcher, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and affirmed by the House of Lords in 1868, the date by which the case is usually cited. Older Indian texts call this rule absolute liability; it is now usually called strict liability, because it admits exceptions, and the Supreme Court's stricter rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) is the one now known as absolute liability. Of the options, only the Rylands rule fits.Lord Atkin is known for the neighbour principle of negligence in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). Winfield wrote in the twentieth century, not in 1735, and Chief Justice Holt died in 1710.

Q: Mr. Stalin, a snake-charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people by claiming himself a person with superpower to entertain the snakes. The crowd gathered around him to watch his show. During the show one of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalised for 5 days medical treatment. The child survived and his parents instituted suit against Mr. Stalin.Which of the following statements is correct in the light of above facts?

The correct statement is that Mr. Stalin is liable to compensate the child's family for his careless act.A person who keeps a dangerous animal such as a snake is strictly liable if it escapes and causes harm, and in any case Mr. Stalin failed to take care to keep it under control in front of a crowd. The child was injured and hospitalised, so there is actual damage to compensate.Volenti non fit injuria does not apply, because a child watching a show does not consent to the risk of being bitten. An escaping snake is not an act of God, which needs an irresistible natural force. And the first option is wrong on the facts: the child was harmed.

Q: Generally tortious liability has an element of fault to support it. In which of the following Acts recently a provision has been added in India, which provides for meeting claims arising both on the basis of fault principle and no fault principle ?

The Act is The Motor Vehicles Act.The Motor Vehicles Act provides for claims both on the fault principle (claims for compensation through the Claims Tribunals, where negligence is proved) and on no-fault liability (fixed compensation for death or permanent disablement without proof of negligence). The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 recast these provisions, including no-fault compensation in section 164.The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is purely no-fault, the Employees' Compensation Act gives no-fault compensation to workmen for accidents arising out of employment, and the Factories Act regulates working conditions rather than tort claims.

Q: The coverage under "third party insurance" is not available to :

Third party insurance does not cover damage to the vehicle, meaning the insured's own vehicle.The compulsory policy under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act insures the owner against liability to third parties: death of or bodily injury to any person, and damage to third-party property, caused by the use of the vehicle in a public place. Cover for damage to one's own vehicle needs a separate 'own damage' or comprehensive policy.Injured victims, the legal representatives of a deceased victim such as his wife, and any person injured in the accident are exactly the third parties the policy protects.

Q: More stringent rule of strict liability than the rule in Rylands V. Fletcher was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India popularly known as :

The case is the Oleum gas case.In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), arising from the leak of oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries in Delhi in 1985, the Supreme Court laid down the rule of absolute liability: an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused, without the exceptions allowed under Rylands v. Fletcher.The Ganga pollution and Taj Mahal cases are other M.C. Mehta environmental cases that did not create this rule, and the Sabarimala case concerned women's entry to a temple.

Q: Act of God, wrongful act of third party, Plantiffs own default, Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of plantiff or defendant, and when it is the consequences of an act done under the authority of statute are the exception of :

These are the exceptions to strict liability.Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who brings onto his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is liable for the damage it causes. The recognised defences are act of God, the wrongful act of a third party, the plaintiff's own default, consent or works maintained for the common benefit of plaintiff and defendant, and statutory authority.Absolute liability, laid down by the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) for hazardous industries, allows none of these exceptions. Vicarious liability and tort in general are not defined by this list.

Q: In view of section 140 No fault liability is to be invoked when :

No fault liability arises where death or permanent disablement results from the accident.Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made the owner of the vehicle liable to pay fixed compensation, without the claimant having to prove wrongful act, neglect or default, where death or permanent disablement resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.Limiting it to death alone or to permanent disability alone leaves out one of the two cases. Where neither results, Section 140 does not apply, and the claimant must prove fault in an ordinary claim.

The case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher deals with :

A.Liability of manufacturer towards consumers
B.Non-natural use of land
C.Negligence of a person who has undertaken the work
D.Non-intentional act of the independent contractor.

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: B

Rylands v Fletcher deals with non-natural use of land.

In this 1868 House of Lords case, water from the defendants' reservoir burst through old mine shafts and flooded the plaintiff's mine. The rule laid down is that a person who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all the damage it causes if it escapes, even without negligence. Lord Cairns added that the rule applies to a non-natural use of the land.

The manufacturer's liability to consumers is Donoghue v Stevenson. The case did not turn on negligence or on a contractor's acts; liability was strict.

Discuss in Forum

The principle of "No Fault" Liability is coined in the landmark judgment given in :

A.Cundey Vs Lindsay
B.Sivaji Dayanu Patil Vs Smt. Vatschala More
C.Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Comapny
D.Rylands Vs Fletcher.

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: B

The key's answer is Shivaji Dayanu Patil v Vatschala Uttam More.

In this 1991 case the Supreme Court interpreted Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which made the owner of a vehicle liable to pay fixed compensation for death or permanent disablement in a road accident without the claimant having to prove any wrongful act, neglect or default. The Court explained this as a scheme of 'no fault' liability and gave the provision a wide, beneficial reading.

Rylands v Fletcher established strict liability for escapes from land, Cundy v Lindsay is a contract case on mistake as to identity, and Rita Devi (2000) concerned whether a murder in the course of a vehicle theft was an accident.

Discuss in Forum

Consider the following statements as true or false :

(I) A circus company keeps wild animals and trained them. One of them escapes and causes injury to a spectator, company is not liable.
(II) A person who brings and keeps any dangerous things, keeps it at his risk, if it escapes damages, he is liable.

A.Both statements (I) and (II) are false
B.Statement (I) is false but (II) is true
C.Both statements (I) and (II) are true
D.Statement (I) is true and (II) is false

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: B

Statement (I) is false but (II) is true.

Statement II is the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): a person who for his own purposes brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes keeps it at his peril, and is liable for the damage caused by its escape even without negligence.

Statement I is false. A keeper of animals of a dangerous species, such as the wild animals of a circus, is strictly liable for the harm they cause if they escape or attack, whatever precautions were taken; in Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus (1957) a circus was held liable for injury caused by its elephant. So the company is liable, which rules out every option calling Statement I true.

Discuss in Forum

The rule of absolute liability was first laid down by :

A.Lord Atkin in 1933
B.Winfield in 1735
C.Justice Blackburn in 1868
D.Chief Justice Holt in 1868

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: C

The key's answer is Justice Blackburn in 1868.

The rule of no-fault liability for the escape of dangerous things was formulated by Blackburn J in Rylands v. Fletcher, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and affirmed by the House of Lords in 1868, the date by which the case is usually cited. Older Indian texts call this rule absolute liability; it is now usually called strict liability, because it admits exceptions, and the Supreme Court's stricter rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) is the one now known as absolute liability. Of the options, only the Rylands rule fits.

Lord Atkin is known for the neighbour principle of negligence in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). Winfield wrote in the twentieth century, not in 1735, and Chief Justice Holt died in 1710.

Discuss in Forum

Mr. Stalin, a snake-charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people by claiming himself a person with superpower to entertain the snakes. The crowd gathered around him to watch his show. During the show one of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalised for 5 days medical treatment. The child survived and his parents instituted suit against Mr. Stalin.

Which of the following statements is correct in the light of above facts?

A.The parents can't file a suit as the snake was non-poisonous and it does not sustain any harm to child
B.The suit will be dismissed as the child was voluntarily watching the show and Mr. Stalin raise a plea of 'Volenti non fit injuria'
C.Mr. Stalin is liable to compensate the child's family for his careless act
D.Mr. Stalin is not liable as it is act of God

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: C

The correct statement is that Mr. Stalin is liable to compensate the child's family for his careless act.

A person who keeps a dangerous animal such as a snake is strictly liable if it escapes and causes harm, and in any case Mr. Stalin failed to take care to keep it under control in front of a crowd. The child was injured and hospitalised, so there is actual damage to compensate.

Volenti non fit injuria does not apply, because a child watching a show does not consent to the risk of being bitten. An escaping snake is not an act of God, which needs an irresistible natural force. And the first option is wrong on the facts: the child was harmed.

Discuss in Forum

Generally tortious liability has an element of fault to support it. In which of the following Acts recently a provision has been added in India, which provides for meeting claims arising both on the basis of fault principle and no fault principle ?

A.Factories Act
B.Employees Compensation Act
C.Public Liability Insurance Act
D.The Motor Vehicles Act

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: D

The Act is The Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Vehicles Act provides for claims both on the fault principle (claims for compensation through the Claims Tribunals, where negligence is proved) and on no-fault liability (fixed compensation for death or permanent disablement without proof of negligence). The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 recast these provisions, including no-fault compensation in section 164.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 is purely no-fault, the Employees' Compensation Act gives no-fault compensation to workmen for accidents arising out of employment, and the Factories Act regulates working conditions rather than tort claims.

Discuss in Forum

The coverage under "third party insurance" is not available to :

A.Victims
B.Wife of the deceased victim
C.Damage to the vehicle
D.Any person who sustained an injury arising out of an accident involving motor vehicle

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: C

Third party insurance does not cover damage to the vehicle, meaning the insured's own vehicle.

The compulsory policy under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act insures the owner against liability to third parties: death of or bodily injury to any person, and damage to third-party property, caused by the use of the vehicle in a public place. Cover for damage to one's own vehicle needs a separate 'own damage' or comprehensive policy.

Injured victims, the legal representatives of a deceased victim such as his wife, and any person injured in the accident are exactly the third parties the policy protects.

Discuss in Forum

More stringent rule of strict liability than the rule in Rylands V. Fletcher was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta V. Union of India popularly known as :

A.Ganga water pollution case
B.Oleum gas case
C.Taj Mahal case
D.Sabarimala case

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: B

The case is the Oleum gas case.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), arising from the leak of oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries in Delhi in 1985, the Supreme Court laid down the rule of absolute liability: an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused, without the exceptions allowed under Rylands v. Fletcher.

The Ganga pollution and Taj Mahal cases are other M.C. Mehta environmental cases that did not create this rule, and the Sabarimala case concerned women's entry to a temple.

Discuss in Forum

Act of God, wrongful act of third party, Plantiffs own default, Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of plantiff or defendant, and when it is the consequences of an act done under the authority of statute are the exception of :

A.Absolute liability
B.Strict liability
C.Vicarious liability
D.Tort

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: B

These are the exceptions to strict liability.

Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who brings onto his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is liable for the damage it causes. The recognised defences are act of God, the wrongful act of a third party, the plaintiff's own default, consent or works maintained for the common benefit of plaintiff and defendant, and statutory authority.

Absolute liability, laid down by the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) for hazardous industries, allows none of these exceptions. Vicarious liability and tort in general are not defined by this list.

Discuss in Forum

10.

In view of section 140 No fault liability is to be invoked when :

A.Death has been resulted from an accident arising out of M.V. Act 1988
B.Death or Permanent disability has been resulted from an accident arising out of M.V. Act 1988
C.Permanent disability has been resulted from an accident arising out of a M.V. Act 1988
D.When neither death nor permanent disability has been resulted from an accident arising out of M.V. Act 1988.

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2025, SET Exam - 2025,

Answer: B

No fault liability arises where death or permanent disablement results from the accident.

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made the owner of the vehicle liable to pay fixed compensation, without the claimant having to prove wrongful act, neglect or default, where death or permanent disablement resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.

Limiting it to death alone or to permanent disability alone leaves out one of the two cases. Where neither results, Section 140 does not apply, and the claimant must prove fault in an ordinary claim.

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