A BREAKDOWN OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

This paper examines two critical doctrines in tort law that impose liability without requiring proof of negligence or intent. The rule of strict liability, established in the 1868 landmark judgment of Rylands v. Fletcher, applies to the escape of dangerous things from land and permits specific defences. In contrast, absolute liability, formulated by the Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), mandates unconditional liability on enterprises engaged in hazardous activities without recourse to defences. This paper traces the evolution of both doctrines, articulates their essential elements and analyses their pivotal distinctions.