A Jurisprudential Analysis of Legal Liability

Introduction

In any civilized society, the framework of law serves not only to grant rights but also to enforce corresponding duties. At the heart of this enforcement mechanism lies the concept of liability, the legal embodiment of accountability for one’s actions, conduct, and even debts. It is the principle that links a wrongful act or omission to a legal consequence, ensuring that those who breach their duties are held answerable.

Table of Contents

Liability is therefore a fundamental concept, acting as the cornerstone for providing remedies to the aggrieved, deterring future misconduct, and ultimately upholding the rule of law. Its principles permeate every facet of human interaction—from personal promises and professional obligations to the large-scale operations of corporations and the functions of the state itself.

From a jurisprudential standpoint, liability is not merely a technical rule but a complex notion rooted in ideas of justice, fault, and social welfare. It arises from the basic premise that where there is a legal right, there is a corresponding legal duty, and the violation of that right constitutes a wrong. It is this wrong that gives birth to liability, creating what the jurist Salmond described as the “bond of necessity” between the wrongdoer and the remedy for their wrong.

What is Liability in Jurisprudence?

Liability, in its essence, encapsulates the notion of legal responsibility, wherein individuals or entities are held answerable for their actions or omissions under the purview of law. Liability results from a wrong or breach of duty. The law sets out rights and responsibilities for individuals. It grants legal rights to one person and places obligations on another. People should not violate these legal rights of others. If someone does violate these legal rights, they are considered to have done something wrong and this leads to liability.

Definitions of Liability in Jurisprudence

Sir John Salmond: According to Salmond, liability or responsibility is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong.
Markby: According to Markby, the word ‘liability’ is used to describe the condition of a person who has a duty to perform.
Austin: Austin prefers to use the term ‘imputability’ instead of ‘liability’. He says that certain actions, or acts along with their consequences, are attributed to the people who did or did not do them. In other words, it’s about holding people responsible for their actions or inactions.

Kinds of Liability

Civil Liability

Civil liabilities are related to civil wrongs which are also called private wrongs. Civil wrongs are infringement of the civil rights belonging to individuals. Civil liability is the enforcement of certain rights claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant in a civil proceeding. Examples of civil proceedings include an action for recovery of debt, restoration of property, and specific performance of a contract.

Criminal Liability

Criminal liability is related to crimes, also known as public wrongs. Public wrongs are breaches and violations of public rights and duties which affect the whole community. Criminal liability is the liability to be punished in a criminal proceeding.

Remedial Liability

Since a duty is created by law, it must be performed. The force of law can compel a person to do what his duty requires under the law of the country. Though there is no idea of punishment in the theory of remedial liability, there are three exceptions:

A time-barred debt creates an imperfect duty and cannot be enforced by any court of law.
In cases like libel and defamation, where duties cannot be specifically enforced (e.g., when a libel has already been published or an assault already committed), it’s too late to compel the wrongdoer to refrain from such acts.
When specific enforcement of a duty is inadvisable, such as a promise of marriage—damages may be awarded, but specific performance is not enforced.

Penal Liability

Penal liability concerns the punishment of wrong. Two conditions are required:

Doing of some act by the person to be held liable, and
Mens rea or guilty mind with which the act is done.

There are three aspects of penal liability:

General Conditions: Expressed in the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” — “the act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by guilty mind”.
Incidence: Refers to the commission of an act amounting to criminality under the penal laws of the country.
Measurement of Penal Liability: It is determined according to the penal theory operative in a particular society.

Mens Rea

Mens rea means guilty mind and is the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability. It includes criminal intention, malice, negligence, rashness, etc.

According to Salmond, mens rea includes only two distinct mental attitudes of the doer toward the deed:

Intention
Recklessness

A person is liable only for those acts which are wrongful and done willfully or recklessly.

Mens Rea under the Indian Penal Code

In the IPC, the general application of mens rea is limited. Since it is a codified law, if mens rea is necessary, it is included in the definition of the offence.

Intention

Intention is defined as the purpose or design with which an act is done. A criminal intention involves acts with probable criminal consequences.

Holmes identifies two elements of intention:

Foresight that certain consequences will follow from an act.
The wish for these consequences to occur, working as motive.

Distinction between Intention and Motive

Though closely related, intention and motive are different. Motive is the ulterior intent or reason behind committing a wrongful act.

Motive and Liability

In law, motive is generally irrelevant. An unlawful act does not become lawful due to good motive, nor does a lawful act become unlawful due to bad motive.

Exceptions to this general rule:

In torts like defamation and malicious prosecution, motive is relevant.
Motive may indicate the state of mind of the actor.
Motive is considered when determining the punishment.

Exemptions from Liability

Necessitatis non habet legem: “Necessity has no law” — A person compelled by coercion of such intensity may not be seen as a free agent.
Where the law presumes no will exists (e.g., children under 7 years of age), no penal liability is imposed.
Mistake as exemption: Must satisfy:
- The mistake should be reasonable.
- The mistake must relate to a matter of fact, not law.

Penal Liability of Negligence

According to Austin, “Negligence is the absence of care according to circumstances.”

Types of negligence:

Advertent Negligence: Willful negligence, also called recklessness.
Inadvertent Negligence: Caused by thoughtlessness, forgetfulness, or ignorance. Harm is neither foreseen nor intended.

Negligence has two meanings in the law of torts:

As a mode of committing torts like trespass, nuisance, or defamation.
As a separate tort — conduct creating risk of damage, not merely a state of mind.

Vicarious Liability

In vicarious liability, one person is made liable for the wrongful act of another person. Vicarious liability is recognized only in civil cases. In certain relationships like those of Principal and Agent, partners in a partnership firm, and Master and servant, vicarious liabilities arise. The best instance of vicarious liability is the master-servant liability.

The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on the following two Latin maxims:

Qui facit per alium facit per se: He who does an act through another is deemed in law as doing it himself.
Respondent superior: The superior must be responsible.

Principal and Agent Liability

A fundamental principle in the law of agency is that a principal can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their agent. This concept, known as vicarious liability, holds the principal accountable for torts committed by the agent while acting within the scope of their employment. The reasoning is that the principal, who benefits from the agent’s actions, should also bear responsibility for their conduct.

Two key legal cases illustrate this principle:

Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co.: A firm of solicitors was found liable for the fraudulent actions of their managing clerk, who induced a client to transfer ownership of her properties for his personal gain. The House of Lords held the firm liable as the fraud occurred during the course of employment and under apparent authority.
State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi: A bank employee misappropriated funds given to him personally. The Supreme Court of India held that the employee was not acting within the scope of employment and the bank could not be held liable.

These cases highlight that liability depends on whether the agent’s act was within the scope of their employment or apparent authority.

Partners Liability

If one partner commits any tort in the ordinary course of the firm’s business, all other partners are liable to the same extent. The liability of each partner is joint and several.

Master-Servant Liability

Under vicarious liability, an employer is responsible for the wrongful acts of their employee committed within the course of employment. This is also known as respondent superior or qui facit per alium facit per se.

Conditions for employer liability:

A Master-Servant Relationship: There must be a formal employment relationship with control over the employee’s work.
The Act Must Be Tortious: The employee’s action must be a civil wrong or tort.
The Act Must Be in the Course of Employment: The act must be related to the employee’s duties or an unauthorized way of doing an authorized task.

Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900): A conductor, unauthorized to drive, turned the bus and injured a plaintiff. The employer was not held liable as the act was outside the scope of employment.

Vicarious Liability of State

Position in England

Res Non-potest Peccare – the king can do no wrong. Historically, the crown couldn’t be sued for torts committed by its servants. However, the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 changed this, making the Crown liable like a private individual.

Position in India

As per Article 300 of the Constitution of India:

“The Government of India may sue and be sued by the name of Union of India and the Government of State may sue or be sued by the name of the state.”

Liability of States in Contract

Articles 298 and 299 of the Constitution provide for contractual liability:

Contracts must be expressed to be made by the President or Governor.
There must be a formal written contract by a duly authorized person.
Execution must be on behalf of the President or Governor.

Union of India v. N.K. (P) Ltd.: A binding contract can arise by tender and acceptance if acceptance is by an authorized person.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and Liability of State in Tort

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India: The state is not liable for acts done in the exercise of sovereign functions but is liable for non-sovereign functions.

Nobin Chunder Dey v. Secretary of State for India: Exempted the state from liability for sovereign functions.

State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati: Supreme Court held that in a welfare state, the state should not be immune to tortious acts of its employees.

Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.: Held the state not liable for acts done in exercise of sovereign powers. Later overruled.

Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.: Held that the state is liable for its acts and that Kasturi Lal was wrongly decided. Sovereign immunity is irrelevant in modern times.

Post Maneka Gandhi case, Article 21 has been interpreted broadly to hold the state accountable under Part III (Fundamental Rights).

End of Sovereign Immunity

State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy: Sovereign immunity cannot be used as a defence for violation of fundamental rights.
Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar: State directed to pay compensation for illegal detention post-acquittal.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir: Compensation awarded for violation of fundamental rights.

Strict Liability

In certain situations, a person may be held liable even when he is not negligent in causing the same or he had no intention to cause the harm. It is also called ‘no fault liability’. Rule of strict liability was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Under this rule, even if the defendant was not negligent or he did not intentionally cause the harm, he could still be made liable under the rule.

Essentials:

Person must bring some dangerous thing on his land.
It must be a non-natural use of land.
That dangerous thing must escape.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:

The following exceptions to the rule of strict liability have been recognized in Rylands v. Fletcher and other cases:

Plaintiff’s own default: Damage caused by escape of the dangerous thing due to the plaintiff’s own default was considered to be a good defence in Rylands v. Fletcher itself.
Act of God: If the escape of the dangerous thing has been unforeseen and because of supernatural forces, without any human intervention, the defence of act of God can be pleaded.
In Nichols v. Marsland, the defendant created artificial lakes on his land by damming up a natural stream. In one particular year there was extraordinary rainfall, heaviest in human memory, by which the stream and the lakes swelled so much that the embankments constructed for the artificial lakes, which were sufficiently strong for ordinary rainfall, gave way and the rush of water down the stream washed away the plaintiff’s four bridges.

The plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for the same. There was found to be no negligence on the part of the defendants. It was held that the defendants were not liable under the rule of strict liability because the accident in this case had been caused by an act of God.
Consent of the plaintiff: In case of volenti non fit injuria, that is where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the rule of strict liability does not arise.
Act of third party: If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger, who is neither defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under the rule.
Thus, in Box v. Jubb, where the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was held not liable for that.
Statutory authority: An act done under the authority of a statute is a defence to an action in tort. The defence is also available when the action is under the rule of strict liability.
In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., the defendant Co. had statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A water main belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.

Position in India:

The rule of strict liability is applicable as much in India as in England. The liability without fault has been recognized in case of motor vehicle accidents. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 recognizes liability without fault. According to section 140 of this Act, in case of the death of the victim, a fixed sum of Rs 50,000, and in case of his permanent disability, a fixed sum of Rs 25,000 can be claimed as compensation without pleading or establishing any fault on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle.

The claim for compensation for the above mentioned amount shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the accident victim. If the claim exceeds the fixed sum of compensation as mentioned above, fault on the part of owner or the driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, has to be established.

In The Madras Railway Co v. The Zemindar of Carvatenagarum, it has been held by the Privy Council that because of peculiar Indian conditions, the escape of water collected for agricultural purposes may not be subject to strict liability. The owner on whose land such water is collected is liable only if he has not taken due care.

In this case, there was escape of water as a consequence of bursting of two ancient tanks situated on the respondent’s zamindary. These tanks which had been in existence since ages, existed not merely for the benefit of the defendant alone, but for the benefit of thousands of his raiyats. The escaping water caused damage to the appellants’ property and three of the railway bridges were destroyed. It was held that under these circumstances the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not applicable and as the Zamindar was not negligent, he was not liable for the damage caused by the overflowing water.

In K. Nagireddi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court also decided on the same lines. In this case the plaintiff had planted 285 fruit-bearing trees on his land. As a result of seepage and percolation of water in branch canal ‘ten’ under the Nagarjunsagar project constructed by the State Government, all those fruit trees absorbed excess water and died.

In an action against the State Government, the plaintiff contended that the percolation and seepage of water was due to the fact that the government had failed to cement or line the floor of the said canal. The High Court followed the above-mentioned decision of the Privy Council and held that the State was not liable. The High Court observed:

“In fact, in India the question to be asked is how could people live if there was no water in tanks and reservoirs. Enormous benefits follow from dams and irrigation is obvious and without them, the land would be wilderness, the country would be desert.”

There was held to be no liability on the ground of negligence either, because it could not be proved that according to Engineering Science it was of necessity that floor of the canal or its bunds have to be ‘lined’ or cemented.

Absolute Liability

In M.C Mehta v Union of India, the Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of oleum gas on 4th and 6th December 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi. As a consequence of the leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected.

The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation. The Court noted that within a year, this was the second instance of large-scale gas leakage in India. Just a year earlier, due to leakage of MIC gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, over 3000 persons had died and lakhs of others were seriously affected.

If the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher were applied to such situations, enterprises running hazardous industries in populated areas could escape liability by invoking exceptions under that rule — such as damage caused by an act of a stranger (e.g., sabotage).

The Supreme Court took a progressive approach by deciding that it was not bound to follow the 19th-century English law and instead evolved a rule more suitable to Indian socio-economic conditions. Thus, the doctrine of Absolute Liability was formulated, rejecting all exceptions under the rule of Strict Liability.

Bhagwati, C.J. stated:

“We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any.”

Definition

Thus, the rule of Absolute Liability may be stated as follows:

“Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in the escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate in case of the rule of Strict Liability.”

Reasons Justifying the Rule of Absolute Liability

The enterprise carrying on such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity for private profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering therefrom.
The enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard against such hazards and dangers.

Application in Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd.

The principle of Absolute Liability was recently applied by the Delhi Court in Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd. In this case, a German co-pilot staying in Hotel Oberoi Continental, a five-star hotel in New Delhi, was severely injured when he dived into a swimming pool with a defective design and insufficient water. The injuries led to his paralysis and eventual death 13 years later.

The Court held that a five-star hotel charging premium prices owes a high duty of care to its guests. A latent defect in its structure or services attracts absolute liability. The hotel was directed to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as exemplary damages.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 provides for immediate relief to victims of accidents involving hazardous substances. Under the Act:

Every owner (any person handling hazardous substances) must procure insurance before commencing operations.
In already established units, such insurance must be taken within one year of the Act’s commencement.
This liability is based on the principle of “no fault liability”.

Conclusion

In law, liability refers to an individual’s or entity’s legal duty or obligation for their acts or omissions. It encompasses the consequences of violating legal rights or duties, whether in civil or criminal contexts.

In civil law, liability often results in compensation through damages or performance of a duty. In criminal law, it may result in penalties such as fines or imprisonment. Liability ensures accountability, forming a cornerstone of the legal framework in any society.

References
Cases

Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., 2 Q.B. 530 (C.A.).
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 494.
Box v. Jubb, (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76.
Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894) 70 L.T. 547.
K. Nagireddi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1973 A.P. 245.
Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1039.
Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 Delhi 201.
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., A.C. 716 (H.L.).
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086.
Madras Railway Co. v. The Zemindar of Carvatenagarum, (1874) L.R. 1 I.A. 364.
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2663.
Nichols v. Marsland, (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1.
Nobin Chunder Dey v. Secretary of State for India, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Cal. 11.
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India, (1861) 5 Bom. H.C.R. App. 1.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1086.
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1263.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2083.
State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 933.
Union of India v. N.K. (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 915.

Statutes and Constitutional Provisions

Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, 10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. 44 (U.K.).
India Const. art. 21, 298, 299, 300.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 (India).
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, No. 59 of 1988, § 140 (India).
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, No. 6 of 1991 (India).

Books

H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (3d ed. 2012)
John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence or The Philosophy of Positive Law (5th ed. 1885)
John Salmond, Jurisprudence or the Theory of the Law (7th ed. 1924)
K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (8th ed. 2015)
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881)
R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (24th ed. 2017)
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts (28th ed. 2019)
William Markby, Elements of Law Considered with Reference to Principles of General Jurisprudence (6th ed. 1905)

Written By: Ankita Mukherjee, LL.M. 2nd Year, Department of Law, Central University of Haryana

What's Hot