What Is Strict Liability

Strict liability means liability without fault. Strict
liability is a liability that attaches to a person once a wrong occurs, without
actual negligence, or intention, because there has been a breach of an absolute
duty not to do the thing that is prohibited. Strict liability is also  known as absolute liability or liability
without a fault.

The torts which is strict liability exists in various
degrees: The rule in Ryland V. Fletcher, liability for Animals, Liability for
defective products and consumer protection generally, liability for breach of
statutory duty, where statute imposes a strict duty and liability for libel;
and so forth.

In these areas of law, among others, there is various degree
of strict liability, even though there is no absolute liability.

The principles of strict liability means that a wrong doer
is liable once the prohibited act is done or occurs, irrelevant of the state of
mind of the doer at the material time.

Whether or not the wrong doer’s mind was blameworthy at the
material time the wrongful act occurred is irrelevant.

All over the world, whether in criminal law or torts, strict
liability means that, mens rea or a guilty mind is not relevant and is not
required for a wrong doer to be liable.

When liability is strict, only the acteus rea or the
physical act is relevant.

The mere occurrence of the act without more renders the doer
liable.

Therefore, the mere doing or occurrence of the prohibited
act makes the doer liable, except it is one where certain appropriate defences
may nevertheless be pleaded. According to Sir John Salmond, liability is
strict; “Where a man acts at his peril and is responsible for accidental harm
independently, of the existence of either wrongful intent, or negligence.

The rule in Rylands V Fletcher; the law of tort as the rule
in Rylands V. Fletcher is on a common law which was restated by Blackburn in
the celebrated case known as Rylands V. Fletcher after summing up the existing
principles of common Law which have been used to decide a number of earlier cases
including Tubervil V. Stamp, which was decided much earlier in 1697 Tenant V.
Goldwin decided in 1704 and so forth. In expounding the rule of law, Blackburn
J. and the House of Lords which affirmed the decision claimed to be restating a
long existing principle of common law. Since Blackburn J. restated the rule in
his decision in the case of Ryland V. Fletcher, this common law principle
became known by the name of the case as the rule in Ryland’s V. Fletcher.

Rylands V. Fletcher, the defendant/appellant who was a mill
owner engaged independent contractors to build a reservoir on his land to
supply water to his mill. During construction, the contractors found disused
mine shafts and passages which unknown to them linked the plaintiff’s mine on
the adjourning land.

The contractors failed to block the shafts and when the
reservoir was filled with water, it escaped and flooded the plaintiff’s mine,
inflicting damages.

The plaintiff sued. Blackburn J, the trial judge summing up
the existing principles of the common law, held that the defendant was liable.
On appeal the house of Lords upheld the judgement of the trial court and
affirmed the liability of the defendants.