Q1: A person was working with a hatchet. Suddenly the head of the hatchet flew and hit B. B dies. Explain
 

Facts of the case:

• A is a person who was working with a hatchet
• B was hit by the head of the hatchet, which flew off suddenly
• B dies due to the injury from the head of the hatchet

Issues/Questions Involved in the case:

• Can A be prosecuted for the death of B?

Decision/Judgement arrived at in the case:

• The death of B was caused due to an accident and A didn’t have any intention to kill B.

Reasons/Principles Applied to arrive at the Decision:

Definitions:

According to Section 80 from Chapter 4 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), “Accident in doing a lawful act: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.”

Object:

Section 80 IPC provides exemption from criminal liability to an act done by accident of misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and attention.

Meaning of accident or misfortune:

“Accident”, a word which is used in everyday life to indicate a course of events over which a person had no control over and which could not be avoided despite reasonable due diligence and care. Section 80 talks about accident as a general exception and which can lead to avoidance of criminal punishment and liability if established fully before a court of law. Law does not intend to punish a man of the things over which he could possibly have no control over.

Accident comes from the word “accidere” which means to happen or befall upon, whenever we use this term in daily life it usually reflects a course of events out of our control. As they say “Accidents happen”, this indicates the core of this general exception that there was no fault of a party which led to the unwanted consequence. The second term used i.e. “Misfortune” is synonymous with bad luck or an event which was undesirable. Misfortunes are similar to accidents but with the only difference that accidents result in harm to others but misfortune may also result in harm to the doer.

Without any criminal intention or knowledge:

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (Mens rea: Guilty Mind) only works as a reminder that criminal law in order to punish seeks some kind of guilty mental element to punish a person. This implies that a person when does not intend and cannot even contemplate occurrence of a certain course of events, cannot be held responsible for the happening of that event.

Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means:

It is important that the act which was being done was lawful, in a lawful manner and by lawful means. A woman who in order to discipline her child, hits him with an iron rod but the rod hits another child and causes injury will not be entitled to the defence of accident as the act itself lacks lawfulness and cannot be said to be in a lawful manner and by lawful means.

Supporting Case laws/precedents/references:

1. State Government of M.P. vs. Rangaswamy [AIR 1952 Nag. 268]

A Heyna, wild animal was moving in the villages and causing injuries and deaths to small children. The people frightened with it. They complained to the authorities. The Government deputed certain officers. While they were wandering in the forests in search of Heyna, they saw a moving animal behind the bushes. It was a rainy day and the vision was not clear. The officers thought that it was the Heyna. It was common that no people would be moving in that area and in particularly in that rainy time. The accused, one of the officers, fired at the moving object. The result was that the death of a human being. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the accused was protected under Sec. 80.

1. Tunda v. Rex [1950 Cr. Lj. 402 (All. HC)]

The accused and the deceased were friends who were wrestling fans and were engaged in a wrestling bout. While wrestling, the deceased’s head accidentally came in contact with a concrete platform resulting in injuries to the skull and eventual death. The accused was tried under section 304 but later on convicted under section 304A. He preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court, which held that when the accused and deceased agree to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on each part to suffer any accidental injuries. The injury was accidental and there was no foul play on part of the accused and hence is to be given the benefit under section 80 and section 87

1. Bhupendrasinha A. Chudasama vs. State of Gujarat [SC 1998 SCC 603]

The accused and the deceased were police constable and head-constable. They were posted to protect a dam site. The accused killed his colleague in the night by firing at a close range without knowing the identity of his target. The accused pleaded the defence of Sec. 80. The trial Court convicted him under Section 302.

On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302, and held that the accused acted without proper care and caution, and that the act of accused could not come under an accident or misfortune or it was not a lawful act.

Conclusion to the Problem:

In view of the above discussion, A cannot be prosecuted for the death of B.

Go to the Index Page for other Subjects material.

Q1: An independent contractor constructed a reservoir and because of heavy rains it collapsed and damaged the coal fields beside it. The owner of coal fields which got damaged wants to approach the court. Explain the liability.
 

Facts of the case:

• Certain coal fields are owned by a person.
• A reservoir was constructed beside the coal fields by an independent contractor
• Due to heavy rains, the reservoir collapsed
• The water from the collapsed reservoir damaged the coal fields

Issues/Questions Involved in the case:

• Can the owner of coal fields which got damaged due to the reservoir water approach the court for recovery of loss incurred by him?

Decision/Judgement arrived at in the case:

• Yes, the owner of coal fields which got damaged due to the reservoir water can approach the court for recovery of loss incurred by him from the owner of the reservoir via Strict Liability rule.

Reasons/Principles Applied to arrive at the Decision:

Meaning of Strict Liability:

‘Rule of Strict Liability’ in Torts mean liability without fault, that is to say, without intention or negligence on the part of defendant. This liability is also famously called as liability under Rylands v. Fletcher of 1868 [1868 LR 3 HL 330]. This rule applies to ‘anything likely to do mischief if it escapes’ such as gas, electricity, vibration, explosives, engines, noxious fumes and water in large quantity.

Essential for application of ‘rule of Strict liability’:

1. Some dangerous thing brought or collected by a person on his land

There should be a dangerous thing brought on land which is likely to escape and cause damage

2. Escape of the dangerous thing

The power escape of the dangerous thing must be inherent. The term escape means ‘escape from a place which is under defendant’s occupation or control’.

3. Non-natural use of land

Collection of dangerous things in a big quantity, which causes damage to the other if it escapes from that place, is considered to be non-natural us of land.

This liability arises when there is a non-natural use of land happening. In such a case, the defendant is held liable even for accidental harm and the plaintiff need not prove negligence or absence of care on the part of defendant.

Acts done by an independent contractor:

Generally, an employer us not liable for the wrongful acts done by an independent contractor. But it is no defence to the application of this rule that the act causing damage had been done by an independent contractor. It is the employer’s duty to keep such dangerous substances in a proper and safe way so that is does not cause injury to others.

Exceptions:

1. Plaintiff’s default: It is a good defence to this rule where the damage caused by the escape is due to the plaintiff’s own default.
2. Act of God: This defence may be taken when the escape of the dangerous thing has been caused due to the operation of natural forces, and which cannot be avoided in spite of the reasonable case, and also in unforeseen circumstances.
3. Natural use of land: Where it is natural use of land as it is good defence, the liability cannot arise except when it is proved that the land is used for non-natural use. Also keeping dangerous things for domestic purpose or in a small quantity is a natural use of land.
4. Plaintiff’s consent: The maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’ meaning where there is a voluntary consent for a thing, liability does not arise, for any loss arising after giving such consent. When a person consents for bringing the dangerous is thing to a place from which it may cause him injury, if it escapes, has no right of action or claim, unless he can prove negligence.
5. Act of Third party: The defendant will not be held liable under the rule where a stranger caused some harm.
6. Statutory Authority: It is a good defence where liability does not arise as the damage has been caused due to the implementation of mandate of Statutory Authority.

Supporting Case laws/precedents/references:

1. Rylands v. Fletcher [1868 LR 3 HL 330]

The plaintiff was the occupier of certain coal mines. The defendant were the owners and occupiers of a mill adjoining the plaintiff’s land. The defendants wished to construct a reservoir. They employed a competent engineer and contractor to do so. There were some old passages of disuse in the mines of the defendant’s land. The contractors failed to observe and they didn’t block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, the water broke through the shaft and filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage to the plaintiff’s mines. The defendants didn’t know because it was constructed by an independent contractor. In this case, the Court held the defendants liable, though there was no negligence on their part. It was held that for liability to arise under the ‘rule of Strict Liability’, no need of proving any negligence on the part of defendant.

1. Nichols v. Marsland [(1876) 2 Ex D 1]

The defendant diverted a natural stream on his land to create ornamental lakes. Exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and waterways to be flooded and damaged adjoining land. The defendant was held not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the cause of the flood was an act of God.

1. Green v. Chejsea Waterworks Company [(1894) 70 LT 547]

The defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water.  Plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water due to burst of a main pipe belonging to the company. In this case, it was held that the company was not liability as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty and there is no negligence on the part of plaintiff too.

Position in India:

The rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher of strict liability is also applied in India with slight variations. Liability without fault has been recognized in case of Motor Vehicle accidents. However, the motor vehicle’s owners get their vehicles insured to protect themselves from the situation after accidents. It is called as Third-Party Insurance and is mandated by the law.

Conclusion to the Problem:

In view of the above discussion, the owner of the coal fields can approach Court to recover the losses he incurred due to the strict liability arising on the independent contractor and the owner of the land on which the reservoir was constructed.

Go to the Index Page for other Subjects material.