Question

In English tort law, the principle of ‘strict liability’ is applied to hold a person legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity, even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the person’s part. In 1987, the Supreme Court of India introduced a new principle- ‘absolute liability’, a far more stringent rule of liability without any exceptions, particularly to deal with industrial accidents. This principle imposed a liability on individuals who engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity for any harm done to any person while carrying out the activity.
Which one of the following assumptions is necessary to ensure the above argument logically follows?

• A. English legal principles are not compatible with the Indian court system.
• B. Post-Independence, the Supreme Court opted to create new names for colonial-era legal principles.
• C. The principle of strict liability was inadequate to protect citizens’ rights due to the entry of foreign companies in Indian markets.
• D. The principle of strict liability was inadequate to protect citizens’ rights in the light of the rapid industrialisation in the 20th century.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D): The principle of strict liability was inadequate to protect citizens’ rights in the light of the rapid industrialisation in the 20th century.