The Confusing World of Absolute Liability
torts ailet intermediate concept_confusionI'm lost in the world of Ryots' Rights v. Union of India (1987) regarding absolute liability. Is it just me or does Section 20A of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 seem like a blanket rule? On one hand, it holds the operator strictly responsible for any damage caused by a nuclear accident, no matter how unforeseeable. But then, don't we have Ryots' Rights, which talks about compensation but only for damages that can be reasonably foreseen? It feels like absolute liability is a hard and fast rule that contradicts the principle of foreseeability. And what about the difference in language between 'strict liability' and 'absolute liability'? Can someone clarify this for me? It's frustrating when something that sounds simple is actually this complicated
4 Comments
Abey, let's break it down. Absolute liability is not just about punishing someone, it's about holding them accountable for any injury or damage caused, regardless of negligence. In cases like Tilkayat Ganeshiram v. State of Bombay, court held that the occupier of a public place is absolutely liable for any injury to the visitors. It's a no-fault liability rule.
Yaar, I still don't buy the concept of absolute liability. It's too harsh on individuals. Take the case of Rylands v Fletcher - the strict liability was imposed on the owner, but what about circumstances beyond his control? Can't we consider negligence or intention too? It's just not fair to hold someone accountable for unforeseen consequences.
Absolute liability refers to circumstances where the individual is held liable regardless of negligence or fault. This concept is used in certain areas like manufacturing where the risk of harm is so great, but the liability remains absolute. An example is the Motor Vehicles Act where manufacturers of defective vehicles are held liable. It's not a matter of proving negligence, just that the product was defective.
Arre, I disagree with this thread ki absolute liability is just a confusing concept. It's not that complex. Ye to kuchh aur hai, liability for a wrongful act, irrespective of fault. Example hai, liability under S. 43 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No need to complicate. Simple, hai na?