Vidyut Supply Board (VSB) owned and managed the supply of electricity

1.	Vidyut Supply Board (VSB) owned and managed the supply of electricity in a city. On a particular stormy night, a live wire snapped off and came down in a service lane. Alok, a scooterist, who happened to pass through that street at night got electrocuted and died. His family sued the Vidyut Supply Board for compensation. Stating the observations of the Hon’able Supreme Court in the M.C Mehta Vs. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, decide on the liability of VSB and validity of the claim of Alok’s heirs.
Answer» Yes, liable for strict liability. Strict liability torts do not care about the intention or carelessness of the defendant when the defendant caused the injury. The claimant does not have to establish any sort of or level of blame attributable to the defendant based on the intention or the degree of carelessness. Strict liability is available in a very limited context. For example, where the defendant's animals may cause an injury to the claimant or where the defendant is involved in an unusually hazardous activity like blasting dynamite. The general rule with respect to ultra-hazardous activity is that when the defendant carries out or keeps an unusually hazardous situation or activity on his or her building or involves in an activity that offers an inevitable danger of injury to the claimant or his or her property, the defendant could be responsible for the damage caused even if the defendant has exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm. In India, a related principle of Absolute Liability was introduced by the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the two instances of gas leaks from factories injuring many.

Vidyut Supply Board (VSB) owned and managed the supply of electricity in a city. On a particular stormy night, a live wire snapped off and came down in a service lane. Alok, a scooterist, who happened to pass through that street at night got electrocuted and died. His family sued the Vidyut Supply Board for compensation. Stating the observations of the Hon’able Supreme Court in the M.C Mehta Vs. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, decide on the liability of VSB and validity of the claim of Alok’s heirs.

Answer»

Yes, liable for strict liability.

Strict liability torts do not care about the intention or carelessness of the defendant when the defendant caused the injury. The claimant does not have to establish any sort of or level of blame attributable to the defendant based on the intention or the degree of carelessness. Strict liability is available in a very limited context.

For example, where the defendant's animals may cause an injury to the claimant or where the defendant is involved in an unusually hazardous activity like blasting dynamite.

The general rule with respect to ultra-hazardous activity is that when the defendant carries out or keeps an unusually hazardous situation or activity on his or her building or involves in an activity that offers an inevitable danger of injury to the claimant or his or her property, the defendant could be responsible for the damage caused even if the defendant has exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm.

In India, a related principle of Absolute Liability was introduced by the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the two instances of gas leaks from factories injuring many.

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment