Question

A company XYZ Ltd. has been accused of violating the Environment Protection Act, 1986 by causing pollution in the local river. According to the principle of Strict Liability, what is the company's liability in this case?

• A. Company is not liable if it can prove that pollution may be caused by a third party.
• B. Company is liable for any damages caused by its action regardless of intent.
• C. Company is liable only if it can prove that it took reasonable steps to prevent the pollution.
• D. Company is not liable as it did not intend to cause pollution.

Hint:

Under strict liability, proving damage is sufficient to establish liability—intention, negligence, or reasonable care are not valid defences.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the principle of strict liability.
The principle of strict liability holds a person or entity responsible for damage caused by its activities, irrespective of intention, negligence, or fault. It is commonly applied in cases involving hazardous or dangerous activities.
Step 2: Application to environmental law.
Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, industries engaging in activities that cause environmental harm are held strictly liable. The focus is on the harm caused, not on the intention behind the act.
Step 3: Analysis of the facts.
XYZ Ltd. caused pollution in a local river. Even if the company did not intend to cause pollution or exercised care, it remains liable for the environmental damage under the doctrine of strict liability.
Step 4: Examination of options.
(A) Incorrect, as third-party involvement does not absolve strict liability.
(C) Incorrect, because taking precautions does not negate strict liability.
(D) Incorrect, since intention is irrelevant under strict liability.
Step 5: Conclusion.
Since strict liability applies regardless of intent or fault, XYZ Ltd. is liable for the damages caused by its actions. Hence, option (B) is correct.