Home › CS Executive › jurisprudence › Law of Torts › In *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 9…
In *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 99* (the Oleum Gas Leak case), the Supreme Court evolved the rule of **absolute liability** for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. How does this rule differ from the *Rylands v. Fletcher* rule of strict liability?
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C.
1. In ***M.C. Mehta v. Union of India* (1987) 1 SCC 99**, the Supreme Court evolved a **new doctrine of ABSOLUTE LIABILITY** for hazardous and inherently dangerous activities.
2. The Court held that **an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community** to ensure that no harm results.
3. **The requirement of non-natural use or escape (essential under *Rylands v. Fletcher*) need NOT be proved in India**, and **it is no answer to say that all reasonable care was taken** and that the harm occurred without negligence.
4. Absolute liability is therefore stricter than strict liability — it strips away the *Rylands v. Fletcher* exceptions and the no-fault defences.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 6, 'Applicability of Rylands v. Fletcher in hazardous industry — M.C. Mehta', pp. 140-141._
Related questions
Which of the following correctly distinguishes 'strict liability' from 'absolute liabilityUnder Indian law, the position on the State's liability in tort prior to the Constitution An employer is generally NOT liable for the torts of an independent contractor. However, IWhich Latin maxim, traceable to the law of torts, is the general principle on the role of The tort of 'false imprisonment' consists in:In *Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (4) 1, JT 1994 (3) 492*, tStrict liability under the rule in *Rylands v. Fletcher* requires the defendant to have maThe Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 of England substantially altered the position on the Crown