Mindyard | On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plastics-manufacturing plant 'LG Polymers' located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a 'hazardous chemical' under Rule 2(e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989. Principle 1: Polluter Pays Principle The 'Doctrine of Polluter Pays' is a well-established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of ameliorating the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to reimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment. Principle 2: Principle of Strict Liability The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an 'unnatural manner' and who keeps any 'hazardous substance' on such premises would be held liable under the principle of strict liability for any 'damage' occurred on the 'escape' of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority. Principle 3: Principle of Absolute Liability The absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can't use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can't claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions. XYZ is a company operating a Pesticide Factory in the city of Rampur. On one day, due to the negligence of Factory staff, there is a leakage of the Pesticide gas as a result of which, many pests and insects which feed on the plantation crops in the nearby farm are killed. There is no harm caused to the people living nearby or the workers of the Pesticide Factory. However, the leakage was so humungous that it reduced the quality of air in the city causing breathing problems for the people living around in the area. In this case, XYZ will be absolutely liable but not strictly liable., XYZ will not be liable under the Strict and Absolute liability principles because the leakage only killed the pests and insects., XYZ‘s liability under the Strict and Absolute liability principles will depend upon the inquiry as to whether the leaked pesticide gas was a hazardous substance/activity or chemical or not and; XYZ will be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle., XYZ will not be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.

On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plastics-manufacturing plant 'LG Polymers' located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a 'hazardous chemical' under Rule 2(e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989.

Principle 1: Polluter Pays Principle
The 'Doctrine of Polluter Pays' is a well-established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of ameliorating the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to reimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment.

Principle 2: Principle of Strict Liability
The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an 'unnatural manner' and who keeps any 'hazardous substance' on such premises would be held liable under the principle of strict liability for any 'damage' occurred on the 'escape' of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority.

Principle 3: Principle of Absolute Liability
The absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can't use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can't claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions.

XYZ is a company operating a Pesticide Factory in the city of Rampur. On one day, due to the negligence of Factory staff, there is a leakage of the Pesticide gas as a result of which, many pests and insects which feed on the plantation crops in the nearby farm are killed. There is no harm caused to the people living nearby or the workers of the Pesticide Factory. However, the leakage was so humungous that it reduced the quality of air in the city causing breathing problems for the people living around in the area. In this case,

Options

XYZ will be absolutely liable but not strictly liable.

XYZ will not be liable under the Strict and Absolute liability principles because the leakage only killed the pests and insects.

XYZ‘s liability under the Strict and Absolute liability principles will depend upon the inquiry as to whether the leaked pesticide gas was a hazardous substance/activity or chemical or not and; XYZ will be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.

XYZ will not be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.

Correct Answer :

Option C

Solution :

The correct answer is: XYZ‘s liability under the Strict and Absolute liability principles will depend upon the inquiry as to whether the leaked pesticide gas was a hazardous substance/activity or chemical or not and; XYZ will be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Analysis of Principle 1 (Polluter Pays Principle):
Under Principle 1, any entity that causes damage to the environment has an absolute obligation to pay for the cost of restoring/revitalizing the damaged environment and compensating sufferers. In the given factual scenario, the humungous leakage of pesticide gas significantly reduced the quality of air in the city, causing severe breathing problems for the residents. Since XYZ damaged the environment (air quality) and affected the people, XYZ is liable under the Polluter Pays Principle to pay for environmental revitalization and damage caused to the air quality.

2. Analysis of Principle 2 & Principle 3 (Strict Liability & Absolute Liability):
- Strict Liability (Principle 2): Requires the presence/keeping of a hazardous substance and its escape due to non-natural use of land.
- Absolute Liability (Principle 3): Applies when an enterprise is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity that causes harm.
Both principles fundamentally depend on whether the substance or activity involved is legally classified as "hazardous" or "dangerous." Therefore, to determine XYZ's liability under either Strict or Absolute liability, a preliminary inquiry is necessary to establish whether the specific pesticide gas leaked qualifies as a hazardous chemical/substance under the law.

3. Conclusion:
Combining both analyses, XYZ is definitely liable under the Polluter Pays Principle due to the air pollution, while its liability under Strict and Absolute Liability depends on whether the pesticide gas is proven to be a hazardous substance/chemical.

Get 3 Months FREE trial

Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.

Unlock Our Free Library

You may also like

Study Material

Clat 2019 UG Question Paper with Solution

Clat 2018 UG Question Paper with Solution

Mock Tests

Clat 2015 UG

Clat 2019 UG

Ask AI Tutor