No Fault Liability Essay

INTRODUCTION

Since it was found that it would be difficult for the victim to prove the minute aspects of existence of duty and the breach of such duty, with irrevocable evidence, and that all cases might not attract the maxim res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself), the courts evolved the principle of ‘no fault liability’. No fault liability has evolved into strict liability through the landmark case of Ryland v. Fletcher in 1868, and into absolute liability in India as result of another leading case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1987.

‘No fault liability’ — the meaning of this phrase is clear with the words that form the phrase. There might not be a fault per se but if an activity is so dangerous that it may constitute constant danger to person and property, the person who performs such an activity must be liable even if his or her fault is not present. In such cases the law might deal with this in two ways, one is to prohibit such activities, and the second is to permit them to be carried out in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures. In such situations, those who undertook such activities have to compensate for any damage caused, regardless of any negligence on their part.

Negligence is based on foreseeable harm, which means that harm could be avoided by

Mehta case has changed the legal depiction of India’s, it has left an impact on the whole world. The Indian law took a historic turn due to C.J., P.N. Bhagwati’s judgement in that particular case. Through this case India provides important insights into the core of tort law, the Bhopal catastrophe had deepened our knowledge of tort law theory. The evolution of strict liability in India is represented by this case. The Indian Supreme Court deviated from the traditional scope of strict liability and also, from the then prevailing interpretations of strict liability, reasoning implicitly that one of the objectives of tort law is to provide distributive