Skip to content

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

Sunrise Chemicals Ltd stores a toxic solvent in a tank within its factory compound in Gujarat. Due to a sudden lightning strike of unprecedented force, the tank ruptures and the solvent flows into a neighbouring farm, destroying the crops. Under the classical rule of strict liability, what is the likely position?

Sunrise is not liable under the classical strict liability rule, because the escape resulted from an act of God, an extraordinary natural event that could not be foreseen or prevented. Act of God is a recognised exception to Rylands v. Fletcher liability.

  1. ASunrise is liable because strict liability admits no exceptions
  2. BSunrise is not liable because the escape was caused by an act of GodCorrect
  3. CSunrise is liable because the neighbour did not consent to the storage
  4. DSunrise is not liable because the solvent was stored for commercial use

Explanation

Act of God, an unforeseeable natural event beyond human control, is a recognised defence to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Option A is wrong because the rule has several exceptions. Commercial purpose does not exempt, since the rule applies to non-natural use.

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