Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case), the Supreme Court departed from the classical rule in which important respect?

The Supreme Court laid down absolute liability: an enterprise carrying on a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is liable for harm caused, without the exceptions of Rylands v. Fletcher, and need not show negligence. It is a stricter, Indian-evolved rule.

  1. AIt restricted the rule to escapes from the defendant's own land only
  2. BIt held that liability arises only if negligence is proved against the enterprise
  3. CIt held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is absolutely liable, without the exceptions available under Rylands v. FletcherCorrect
  4. DIt held that only the State, and not private enterprises, can be liable for hazardous activity

Explanation

The Court evolved the rule of absolute liability for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, with no exceptions such as act of God. Option B reintroduces fault, which the rule rejects, and the rule is not limited to the State.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions