Question:

Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.

Facts:
A, an industrialist, stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for industrial use.
There was a leakage from the tank, releasing ammonia vapour into the surroundings.
Many workers in other industries as well as his own, and members of the public, suffered serious health hazards.
Examine the liability of A, if any.

Show Hint

In strict liability cases, the focus is on the dangerous nature of the substance and its escape, not on the precautions taken by the person storing it.
Updated On: Aug 14, 2025
  • A may be liable for the injury sustained by his workers only and not others.
  • A is liable as he is responsible for the injury caused by the leakage of ammonia from his premises.
  • A is not liable because there was no fault on his part for the escape of the dangerous substance.
  • A is not liable because he did not expect a leakage from the tank.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation


Step 1: Understanding the Legal Principle
This is based on the doctrine of \textit{strict liability} (from \textit{Rylands v. Fletcher}). If a person keeps hazardous materials on their premises, they are liable for any damage caused if those materials escape — even without proof of negligence.
Step 2: Applying the Facts
Liquid ammonia is a hazardous substance. A stored it for industrial purposes. It escaped into the surrounding environment due to leakage, causing harm to people. The principle applies regardless of whether A anticipated the leakage or took precautions.
Step 3: Evaluating the Options
- Option 1: Incorrect — Liability is not limited to his own workers; it extends to all those affected.
- Option 2: Correct — This exactly matches the strict liability principle; A is responsible for the injury to all affected persons.
- Option 3: Incorrect — Fault or negligence is not required for strict liability.
- Option 4: Incorrect — Lack of expectation does not absolve liability under strict liability.
Step 4: Conclusion
Under strict liability, A is responsible for harm caused by the escape of hazardous substances, regardless of negligence or intention.
\[ \boxed{\text{A is liable for the injuries caused by the ammonia leakage.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions