Mukesh Textiles Pvt Ltd v. H.R. Subramanya Sastry (1987)
```
Quick Summary
A molasses tank in a sugar/textile mill leaked into a neighbour’s field after rodent damage. The crops were ruined. The Karnataka High Court said the mill owed a duty of care, and storing a risky substance next to farmland attracts negligence and strict liability ideas. The chain of events was continuous, so no new independent act broke causation. Damages were partly reworked.
Issues
- Was the mill’s failure to care for the tank the direct cause of crop loss, or was the loss too remote?
- Is the awarded sum of Rs 14,700 supported by proof and fair as compensation?
Rules
Neighbour Principle
Take reasonable care to avoid harm to neighbours. Do not act recklessly when harm is foreseeable.
Strict Liability (Escape)
If a non-natural substance escapes from your land and causes damage, you may be liable (Rylands v Fletcher).
Novus Actus Interveniens
A new, independent act can break the causal chain. It applies only if a stranger’s act truly interrupts the sequence.
Facts (Timeline)
Parties & Land: Mill at Shimoga stored molasses; adjoining field belonged to the respondent; a water channel ran between them.
Tanks: Two steel tanks and one mud tank; the mud tank was closest to the farm.
16-04-1970: Rodents damaged the mud tank; molasses overflowed into the channel and onto the field; crops were harmed.
Trial Court: Treated it as an Act of God; awarded Rs 14,700 (against a claim of Rs 35,000).
Appeal: The respondent challenged the finding and the quantum before the Karnataka High Court.
Arguments
Appellant (Mill)
- Leak was unforeseen and not due to lack of care.
- Rodent attack broke the causal chain (novus actus).
- Damages claimed were excessive and unproven.
Respondent (Farmer)
- Duty of care breached—mud tank near fields with known rodent risks.
- Escape of molasses establishes liability.
- Compensation should match crop loss proved.
Judgment
The High Court partly allowed the appeal on damages but held the mill liable. There was a clear duty to act carefully. The mill knew of rodent issues and should have anticipated risk to the mud tank. Storing large quantities of perishable, risky material beside farmland created a relationship of responsibility.
- Negligence found: Duty + foreseeability + breach + damage.
- No novus actus: The sequence was continuous; no independent third-party break.
- Damages adjusted: Quantum to be supported by proper proof of loss.
Ratio (Reason for Decision)
Foreseeable escape of a hazardous substance from one’s land into a neighbour’s field brings liability. When risk is known (rodents; weak tank), reasonable precautions are mandatory. Causation stands if events flow without an independent break.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies causation where damage follows an escape across properties.
- Shows courts blend negligence with strict liability ideas for practical justice.
- Signals careful quantification of damages with proof.
Key Takeaways
Known risks (rodents; weak tank) require proactive prevention.
If hazardous material escapes and harms, liability follows.
No novus actus where events connect without a stranger’s act.
Compensation must match proven loss; courts adjust quantum.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “F-E-C = Foresee — Escape — Causation”
- Foresee: Spot known risks (rodents; weak tank).
- Escape: Prevent leakage into neighbours’ land.
- Causation: If chain is unbroken, you are liable.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Did the mill’s negligence directly cause crop loss, and what damages are just?
Rule
Neighbour principle; strict liability for escape; novus actus only if a real independent break occurs.
Application
Rodent risk known; mud tank failed; molasses reached field via channel—continuous chain.
Conclusion
Liability affirmed; damages recalibrated to evidence.
Glossary
- Neighbour Principle
- Duty to avoid acts likely to injure those closely affected by your actions.
- Strict Liability
- Liability without fault for escape of non-natural use substances.
- Novus Actus
- A new, independent act that breaks the chain of causation.
- Quantum of Damages
- The amount of compensation justified by proof of loss.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now