Home › CS Executive › jurisprudence › Law of Torts › Which of the following correctly distinguishes '…
Which of the following correctly distinguishes 'strict liability' from 'absolute liability' as understood under Indian tort law after *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India*?
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D.
1. **Strict liability under *Rylands v. Fletcher*** is independent of negligence but is subject to **six recognised exceptions**: natural use of land, consent of plaintiff, act of third party, statutory authority, act of God, and escape due to plaintiff's own default.
2. **Absolute liability under *M.C. Mehta*** is stricter still: an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute, non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results — **none of the Rylands exceptions apply**, and the requirement of non-natural use or escape need NOT be proved.
3. So the difference is the availability of the *Rylands* exceptions: present under strict liability, absent under absolute liability.
4. Options B, C and D are inventions outside Indian jurisprudence.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 6, 'Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher' + 'Applicability of M.C. Mehta', pp. 138-141._
Related questions
Under 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 CrownIn *N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1994 SC 2663*, the Supreme Court significantly r