6 Absolute and Strict Liability

Fault-based liability asks "was the defendant to blame?" Strict and absolute liability dispense with the question:• Strict liability: liability without proof of fault for harm caused by extra-hazardous activities — keeping wild animals, escaping water/reservoirs (the classic English Rylands v. Fletcher rule: one who brings onto land and keeps anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, keeps it at their peril), defective products in modern consumer regimes. Even the greatest care is no defence; but limited statutory defences (act of God, stranger's act, victim's consent/default) may excuse. Rationale: the enterprise that profits from the risk should internalize its costs — the fairness of loss-spreading.• Absolute liability: the harsher form — no defences at all. The Indian Supreme Court's evolution after the Bhopal gas tragedy (constitutional tort against hazardous enterprises with no exceptions) made "absolute liability" a named doctrine in South Asian exam answers. Nepal's environmental and consumer statutes impose no-fault duties in defined settings — e.g., product-liability and consumer-redress provisions under the Consumer Protection Act 2075 requiring remedies for defective goods/services, and environmental-law duties whose breach attracts liability irrespective of care. Describe these by statute name and effect, without inventing sections.Comparison table (exam favourite):PointStrict liabilityAbsolute liabilityFault needed?NoNoDefencesStatutorily limited defences (act of God, stranger, consent)None — not even act of God or strangerOriginRylands v. Fletcher rule; statutory schemesPost-Bhopal constitutional-tort doctrineRationaleRisk-internalization…