“THE APPEAL BY JOHN GRISHAM”

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED

LAW AND LITERATURE

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR.PRATUSH KAUSHIK NAME- SHAURYA SHUKLA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH COURSE- B.A.LLB(HONS.)

ROLL NO.- 2160

SEMESTER - 2ND

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

1
 DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE

I, hereby, declare that the work reported in B.A., LL.B (Hons.) Project report entitled “THE
APPEAL BY JOHN GRISHAM” submitted at Chanakya National Law University is an
authentic record of my work carried out under supervision of Dr. Pratyush Kaushik. I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the
contents of my project work.

NAME: SHAURYA SHUKLA

ROLL NO: 2160

COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 2ND

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. PRATYUSH KAUSHIK whose guidance helped me a lot
in structuring my project.
I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely with
materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed in the present
way.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me out
at every stage of the project.

NAME: SHAURYA SHUKLA

ROLL NO: 2160

COURSE: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 2nd

3
 CONTENTS
CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................5

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................6

HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................................................................7

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................7

LIMITATION OF STUDY.........................................................................................................7

MODE OF CITATION................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER2: PLOT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................8

CHAPTER5: ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................8

CHAPTER6: LEGAL ISSUES......................................................................................................12

RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY...........................................................................................12

RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY....................................................................................16

CHAPTER7: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION...................................................................19

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................22

PRIMARY SOURCES..............................................................................................................22

SECONDARY SOUCES...........................................................................................................22

4
 CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION

Krane Chemicals has been found guilty of contaminating the water supply of Bowmore,
Mississippi and is to pay damages to the claimant bringing the case, but Krane owner, Carl
Trudeau, successfully appeals the verdict. The verdict is out, delivered by a jury in the court of
Judge, Harrison. Krane Chemicals has been found liable for consistently dumping harmful
chemical waste in the little town of Bowmore, Mississippi. This wanton dumping was found to
have contaminated the water supply, resulting in the death from cancer of the husband and son of
Jeannette Baker, represented by husband and wife team, Wes and Mary Grace Payton. The legal
battle took four years and now the court is awarding Jeanette damages of $41 million. The rate of
cancer in Bowmore has been found to be 15 times higher than the national average. Bowmore
has consequently been nicknamed ‘Cancer County'. The story proceeds with no focus on any
central character.
In The Appeal, we read about the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi. This is one part of
the legal world that Grisham has yet to journey in. What was the result? Well first, a brief
summary.
In the introduction, literally the first chapter, we are brought up to speed on an entire case and
narrated through it all the way up to the final verdict: A Mississippi jury awards a $41-million
verdict against a chemical company accused of dumping waste into a small town's water supply.
It appears Goliath--the large company of Krane along with it's intimidating lawyers and
billionaire CEO--have lost. While a young woman who has lost a son and a husband (and who
otherwise plays virtually no role in this story) is about to walk away with millions with the small
help of a small town husband and wife lawyer team. All that stands in the way is an appeal to the
state's Supreme Court.
Well, through back channels and other dishonest means, the CEO of Krane--one Carl Trudeau--
is presented with an opportunity to manipulate this appeal. After working with an under-the-
radar company, they select the most liberal of the nine judges that is due up for reelection and
target to bring her downfall. By bringing in their own man (and then backing him with millions
of dollars) they will be able to turn this case around and have it thrown out. In The Appeal, it is
this aspect that is at the central core.1
There are many other small details I have left out, but this is basically the plot in a nutshell.
Based on my rating, you will see that this is not one of Grisham's finer works so I will spare you
the rest of the details and get to the point here.
Possible the biggest (of several) problems in this story is the lack of a central character. In every
other Grisham novel, you knew where the central theme of the story was focused on and who
was at the focal point. At no time was I actually aware of the central character here. Now it is
okay to have an "ensemble cast" (which has been made popular in many prime time television
shows), but there was not really an "ensemble" here. The story bounced between four or five
weak characters such as CEO Carl Trudeau, the husband and wife attorney team of Wes and
Mary Grace Payton, current Supreme Court justice Sheila McCarthy, and heavily backed

1
www.kickinglettuce.com

5
challenger Ron Fisk. By the end, it appears Fisk is thrown into the central focus of the story
(after being omitted from the first one third of the novel). In itself, this style of using characters
is not automatically a negative point. But when none of these characters are developed well or
even likable it can present a problem. Because the drama is jumped around so often, no one has a
chance to develop outside of their two dimensional introductions (save for a minor plot point
involving Ron Fisk at the climax).
The actual story moved along at a fairly decent pace, considering that--outside of a comedic
political campaign that kept things lively--not much going on was very gripping.
In a minor way, the conclusion of the novel was suppose to be a teaching lesson of the dark
private finances that go on behind the scenes in the political world and how the minority of men
with money can easily shape this world. I am going to have to say I was not honestly moved by
this plot device.
Admittedly, the summary on the backside of this novel (assuming you have the paperback) did
seem gripping; but the story itself never moves up into that higher gear like you would hope it
would. Rather then picking up The Appeal, I would rent the John Travolta movie A Civil
Action--which is based on a novel that which had a very similar plot to this story. In that story,
there is a central character who is involved in a similar case (chemicals, water, cancer, etc.) in a
small town and who is also letting the big company financially drain his resources and bringing
down the collapse of his small firm. Yes, exactly in the way we see here with the firm of Payton
& Payton. However, with the John Travolta character, Jan Schlichtmann, you can see a great
performance and a character that puts his heart and soul into this case and even borders obsession
regarding it. A type of performance or development that was utterly lacking with The Appeal.
And, to conclude one final point, without giving any spoilers, the ending is extremely
disappointing. When done correctly. it could have been motivational, but here, as with the rest of
this story, the ending was very flat and made no emotional impact on me.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the problem of rule of law and no fault liability in the novel ‘The Appeal’ by John
Grisham .

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research project is solely based on doctrinal type of research work.

6
HYPOTHESIS

The Researcher believes that ‘The Appeal’ is John Grisham’s one of the most powerful and
influential work.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 What is the theme of the Novel?

 What does the author want signify through the novel?
 What is the take of author on rule of law and no-fault liability?
 What are legal aspects of the novel?

LIMITATION OF STUDY

The researcher had time limitation while making this project.

MODE OF CITATION
The researcher has followed uniform mode of citation.

7
 CHAPTER2: PLOT OVERVIEW

Politics has always been a dirty game...

Now justice is, too...
In a crowded courtroom in Mississipi, a jury returns a shocking verdict against a chemical
company accused of dumping toxic waste into a small town's water supply, causing the worst
"cancer cluster" in history. The company appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court, whose nine
justices will one day either approve the verdict or reverse it.
Who are the nine? How will they vote? Can one be replaced before the case is ultimately
decided? The chemical company is owned by a Wall Street predator named Carl Trudeau, and
Mr. Trudeau is convinced the Court is not friendly enough. With judicial elections looming, he
decides to try to purchase himself a seat on the Court. The cost is a few million dollars, a drop in
the bucket for a billionaire like Mr. Trudeau. Through an intricate web of conspiracy and deceit,
his political operatives recruit a young, unsuspecting candidate. They finance him, manipulate
him, market him, and mold him into a potential Supreme Court justice. Their Supreme Court
justice.

CHAPTER3: ANALYSIS
2
Krane Chemicals has been found guilty of contaminating the water supply of Bowmore,
Mississippi and is to pay damages to the claimant bringing the case, but Krane owner, Carl
Trudeau, successfully appeals the verdict. The verdict is out, delivered by a jury in the court of
Judge, Harrison. Krane Chemicals has been found liable for consistently dumping harmful
chemical waste in the little town of Bowmore, Mississippi. This wanton dumping was found to
have contaminated the water supply, resulting in the death from cancer of the husband and son of
Jeannette Baker, represented by husband and wife team, Wes and Mary Grace Payton. The legal
battle took four years and now the court is awarding Jeanette damages of $41 million. The rate of
cancer in Bowmore has been found to be 15 times higher than the national average. Bowmore
has consequently been nicknamed ‘Cancer County'. The story proceeds with no focus on any
central character.

With the huge award to their client, the Paytons are hoping their own lives can return to normal.
They are broke, heavily indebted to the bank, and operating from an abandoned store, while
living in modest rented accommodation. However, Krane Chemicals' owner, Carl Trudeau, who
is based in New York, is having none of it. He is determined that not a penny will reach
2
http://allreaders.com/book-review-summary/the-appeal-41213

8
Jeannette and her lawyers, or the multitudes of other plaintiffs and their trail lawyers. The
Paytons have at least 30 other related cases.

Stocks in all Carl Trudeau's companies fall and he loses $1 billion in one day. Carl wants to
remain rich and besides, he needs to maintain his expensive third wife, Bianca, whose daily
needs, from trainer to nutritionist, costs $800 a day.

Carl resolves to appeal against the liability judgment at the Mississippi Supreme Court. He wants
the judgment reversed altogether, and he enlists the services of a shadowy figure called Rinehart
who's team are experts at interfering in campaigns for Supreme Court elections. The Mississippi
Supreme Court has nine judges, and Rinehart's investigations have shown that they will most
likely be split 5:4 against Krane, in the event of the appeal. Justice Sheila McCarthy, a known
moderate, is deemed to be the problem. It is believed that she will cast the decisive vote that will
defeat the Krane appeal as she's done in similar cases. However, Sheila is due for reelection to
the Supreme Court in 12 months, (six months before the Krane appeal comes up) and Rinehart
assures Carl that if he can have her replaced by a judge sympathetic to corporate clients facing
liability cases, Carl will get the reversal he needs. Carl is to pay $8 million for this service but
the money will not be traced back to him.

Rinehart puts together a team to look for a suitable candidate to challenge Sheila for her seat.
Ron Fisk fits the bill perfectly. He is white, a married Christian, and a Conservative.
Additionally, his firm has no affiliation to any trial lawyers. Sheila, on the other hand, is
divorced, known to have affairs on the side, and is close to trial lawyers in liability cases. She
also has nothing against gays, but is opposed to guns and the death penalty. Rinehart and his
crew whip up frenzy against Sheila's lifestyle and ideals. She's presented as a dangerous liberal
who's against family values and is sympathetic to criminals. Most of all, she's projected as an
enemy of big business. Meanwhile, as the stock in his company falls, Carl is secretly buying it up
again.

9
Money and support pour into the Fisk campaign from corporate business and illegally from Carl
Trudeau and other out-of-state sources. Fisk, himself, proves to be an excellent public speaker
and soon has many ordinary people in the palm of his hand. The only financial and moral support
Sheila is able to muster (which is not much) is from the trial lawyers who have much to lose if
the appeal is won by Krane. Rinehart and his team go after the trial lawyers as well and present
them as greedy and self-serving. Ron Fisk briefly shows discomfort at the dirty tricks being
employed in his campaign and the unclear sources of much of its funding, but he is soon caught
up in the glory of his new image and status.

3
Weeks before the election, and to ward off suspicion of its real intent, Krane Chemicals makes
settlement overtures to all present and potential claimants in the Krane case. An elaborate
meeting is set up but before any real decisions can be made, Krane pulls out of the negotiations
citing the ‘unrealistic' demands of the plaintiff's lawyers.

The elections for the Supreme Court take place. Sheila is soundly beaten by Ron Fisk and she
retreats into private practice. Four months before the Krane appeal, Ron Fisk takes office as
Supreme Court judge and begins to perform exactly as he's expected to. He helps reverse a
number of liability verdicts. But tragedy suddenly strikes his family. While participating in a ball
game, Ron's son, Josh, is struck with a ball on the temple. He receives treatment but will never
be the same again, mentally. Ironically, Ron now has the option of suing the manufacturers of
the offending bat and the hospital that treated Josh, initially, but mixed up his records so his
deterioration couldn't be arrested in a timely manner. Ron Fisk now has a sense of how the
victims in liability cases must feel. He's plagued by indecision. There is a buzz of excitement in
Bowmore at these developments. Since the boot is now on the other foot, perhaps Ron will cast
his vote in their favor in the upcoming appeal.

3
http://allreaders.com/book-review-summary/the-appeal-41213

10
Ron Fisk keeps delaying making a decision on the Krane Appeal as he wrestles with his
conscience. But finally, because so much money was spent on his election, he resignedly votes in
favor of reversing the liability charge. Krane Chemicals wins its appeal. All the people who were
hoping the vote would go the other way are devastated. Ron also does not sue over his son's case.

The story ends with Carl celebrating his success with a lavish party aboard his yacht. Krane
stocks are high again. His net worth is past $3 billion. He's also regained all the money he dished
out for the Fisk campaign and is contemplating ways of becoming richer still.

An interesting and convincing step by step account of how big money can be secretly used to
decide an election and of the dirty tricks involved. The small guys with little money but a
legitimate case can't hope to compete. The reader feels as helpless as they do and just as
disappointed when the big guys don't get their comeuppance at the end. But a fairy tale ending
might have detracted from Grisham's unmistakable moral message.

Best part of story, including ending:

I liked this story because it was a detailed account on how elections to the Supreme Court may
become subverted. The story is also told from different perspectives so that there is a balanced
view of the process

Best scene in story:

When Krane Chemicals makes a pretence at a settlement with all prospective claimants in the
Krane case. The various trial lawyers turn up demanding a lead in the negotiation. There's
bickering over pinching of clients, a lot of yelling and the risk of fists flying, as the self-
important lawyers jostle for position. When it's finally decided that the class actions will get the
lowest priority, there's danger of another eruption. The scene is told with plenty of humor.

11
4
Opinion about the main character:

The problem is that there is no main character. There are at least five characters that take centre
stage in different parts of the book but the reader doesn't get to know any of them well. Each
goes for several pages at a time with barely a mention. If I were to comment on the Paytons, I
would say they should have been more vibrant throughout but they are reduced to bystanders.
Their relationship on both a professional and personal level is pretty dull. Ron Fisk hasn't much
of a conscience and Carl is too self-satisfied. Sheila is perhaps the most convincing of the lot.
She's feisty and put s up a spirited fight to save her job at the Supreme Court.

CHAPTER4: LEGAL ISSUES

The legal issues related to this book revolves around the principle of no- fault liability .

Rule Of Strict Liability

Strict liability is the principle which evolved from case of Rylands v Fletcher in the year 1868.
This principle clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is
responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages. This
principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person keeping it and the
burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.

Facts: There were two men living next to each other, Rylands and Fletcher. Fletcher owned a
mill for whose energy requirement; he constructed a water reservoir on his land. To get this work
done, he had hired independent contractors and engineers. There were old unused shafts under
the site of the reservoir which the engineers didn’t notice and thus did not block them. Due to the
negligence of the contractors, the shafts that led way to Rylands’ land burst when water was
filled in the reservoir. This caused huge damage and loss to Ryland as the water entered into his
coal mine. Thus, Ryland filed a suit against Fletcher.

Issues: The issue was very concise and straight. Can the defendant be held liable for the act of
someone else due to which an entity on his land escapes without his negligence or intention?

The defendant took the defence that that it was not his fault but the contractors’. His being liable
for the damage, the cause of which was unknown to him was not acceptable to him.

Judgment: The house of the Lords rejected the plea of the defendant and claimed him to be liable
for all the damages to Rylands.

4
http://allreaders.com/book-review-summary/the-appeal-41213

12
5
Per Lord Cairns: “On the other hand if the Defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their
close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural use, for the purpose
of introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or upon it, for the
purpose of introducing water either above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the
result of any work or operation on or under the land, – and if in consequence of their doing so, or
in consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water came to escape and
to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the Defendants
were doing they were doing at their own peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil
arose to which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away
to the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for the consequence of that, in my
opinion, the Defendants would be liable.”[i]

According to the rule set by this case, if a person brings on his land and keeps there any
dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima
facie answerable to the damage caused by its escape even though he had not been negligent in
keeping it there. The liability arises not because there was any fault or negligence on the part of a
person, but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land and the same has escaped from
there and caused damage. Since, in such a case the liability arises even without any negligence
on the part of the defendant, it is known as the rule of strict liability.[ii]

Therefore, this is one of the most important landmark judgements in the history of the legal
system since it led to the formulation of a new concept, a new idea and thus a new principle- the
rule of the strict liability. Based upon his principles, there were certain qualifications given to
decide whether a liability is strict liability or not. Only after these essential qualifications being
satisfied, a liability can be termed as strict liability.
Essentials Of Strict Liability
Dangerous Thing

This simply means that the defendant will be liable for the damages only when the thing that
escaped from his premises was a dangerous thing. The word ‘dangerous’ here implies that it is
likely to do any sort of mischief if it escapes from the land of the defendant. In the case studied
above, the dangerous thing was the collected water in the reservoir on Fletcher’s land. The rule
specifies that things like gas, electricity, explosives, flag pole, noxious fumes, vibrations, yew
trees, sewage and even rusty wires can also be termed as dangerous if escapes from the premises
of the owner.
Escape

It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant. It
should not be within the reach of the defendant after its escape. For example, if the poisonous
plants growing on the defendant’s land escapes and enters the plaintiff’s land and is then eaten
up by the cattle on the plaintiff’s land, the defendant is liable for the damages caused to the cattle
of the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the plaintiff’s cattle themselves enter the land of the
defendant and eat the poisonous plants and die, the defendant will not be liable since there was

5
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/no-fault-liability/
13
no escape of his property. The case of Read v Lyons & co. shows that the defendant is not liable
if there is no escape. In this case, the plaintiff, Read was an employee in the defendant’s
ammunition factory. While she was working in the premises of the defendant, a shell exploded
and the plaintiff was severely injured. The defendant could not be held negligent since there was
no negligence on his part. Even the rule of Rylands vs. Fletcher didn’t apply here since the
dangerous thing, the shell, had not escaped from the premises of the defendant. Thus, Lyons &
co. was not held liable whereas in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, the dangerous thing, the
water had escaped from the defendant’s premises. In the case of Ponting vs. Noakes, the
claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a
Yew tree. The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in
the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape. [iii]
Non-Natural Use Of Land
6
In the landmark case, the water collected constituted the non-natural use of land. Keeping water
for domestic purposes is natural use but keeping water for use in the mill is non-natural use of
land. For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger
to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the
general benefit of community.[iv] Electric wiring in the house, electric wiring in the shops,
supply of gas in gas pipes in a dwelling house and water installation in a house are other
examples of the natural use of land. In the case of Sochacki vs. Sas, the defendant was a lodger
in the claimant’s house. He lit an open fire in his room and then went out. Unfortunately a spark
jumped from the fire and set the room alight. The fire spread to the rest of the house and the
claimant brought an action against the defendant based on liability arising under Rylands v
Fletcher. It was held that the defendant was not liable. Whilst the fire was likely to do mischief if
it escaped, the use of an open fire in the claimant’s fireplace was not considered a non-natural
use of land.[v] This case clearly explains the conditions when the use of the land by the
defendant can be described as non-natural use and when not.

These are the three basic essentials for the applicability of the rule of strict liability. If the three
cases are satisfied well in the case, then the defendant will be held liable for the tort under the
tort of ‘strict liability’ and following the ‘no fault liability principle’.
Exceptions To The Rule Of Strict Liability

Strict liability evolved from the Rylands v Fletcher case in the English court in the year 1868.
This principle clearly states that a person, who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is
responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages. This
principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person keeping it and the
burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable. However there are
certain exceptions to this rule. These exceptional rules have been recognized by the Rylands v
Fletcher case and later cases. The exceptions are as follows:
Plaintiff’s Own Fault

6
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/no-fault-liability/

14
If somehow the plaintiff himself enters into the land of the defendant and injures himself and
then claims for damages, he is not liable for the damages since he himself went forward to the
dangerous thing. . In the case of Ponting v Noakes(1994), the claimant’s horse died after it had
reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The defendant was not
liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s
land and there had therefore been no escape.[vi] The plaintiff cannot recover anything if the
damage was caused due to the unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiff’s apparatus and such damage
won’t cause any harm to a person carrying ordinary business there. Until and unless there is
‘escape’ of the dangerous thing or the land of the defendant is being used for non-natural
purposes for an ordinary person, the defendant can’t be held liable.
Act Of God

An act of God can be defined as an event that directly and exclusively results from the
occurrence of natural causes that could not have been prevented by the exercise of foresight or
caution.[vii] In the context to the strict liability, if the escape was unforeseen and without any
human intervention, caused by some super natural force, then the defendant will not be liable for
the damages. For instance, in the case of Nichols v Marsland, this defence was successfully
pleaded. In this case, the defendant built up a dam in the natural stream flowing on his land to
create artificial lakes there. Unfortunately, that land faced heavy rainfall that year. The rainfall
was extra ordinary and unforgettable. Due to the rain, the embankments of the artificial lakes
gave away. The rush of the water down the stream washed away the bridges of the plaintiff. It
was held that the defendant was not liable.
Consent Of The Plaintiff

In this exception, there is no common benefit to the defendant and the plaintiff, as in the case
of volenti non fit injuria. For example, if the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours and share
the same water source on the land of the defendant, if any damage is caused to the plaintiff due
to that collected water, the defendant won’t be liable. On the other hand, when a festival is
organized and the display of fireworks causes damages to the crowd, the organizers will be liable
since the display will not be deemed to be conducted for the benefit of all.
Act Of Third Party

The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damages is caused due to the act of a stranger.
A stranger will be a person who is not the servant of the defendant nor is under the control of the
defendant. However, if the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the defendant, due care must be
taken by the defendant to avoid the damages. In the case of Box v Jabb, the reservoir of the
defendant overflowed because of a blockage in the drains by strangers. Thus, the court did not
claim the defendant to be liable.
Statutory Authority

An act done under the authority of the statute is a very strong defence to an action for tort.
However, the defence cannot be pleaded if the if there is any kind of negligence on the part of
the defendant who is under statutory authority. In the Green v

15
Chelsea Co. (1894), the defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply
of water. A main belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a
consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the
company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.[viii]

Rule Of Absolute Liability

7
The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the case of M.C.Mehta v Union of India. This was a
very important landmark judgment that brought in a new rule in the history of the Indian Law.
The rule held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to
compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

Facts: In the city of Delhi, there was severe leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and the 6th of
December, 1985. This took place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries
belonging to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. due to this, an advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari
Court had died and many others were affected by the same. The action was brought through a
writ petition by way of public interest litigation (PIL). In Indian law, public interest litigation
means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is litigation introduced in a court of
law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not
necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the
violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public interest litigation is the
power given to the public by courts through judicial activism. However, the person filing the
petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for a public
interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body.[ix]

Issue: The issue raised was a very strong issue. It said that if all these tragedies follow the rule of
strict liability, they will come under the exceptions laid down for Rylands v Fletcher case.

Judgment: The Supreme Court took a very bold decision to evolve a new rule fit for the
economic and social conditions prevailing in India. The rule of absolute liability was then
formed in preference to the rule of strict liability. This rule ignored all the exceptions in the
Rylands v Fletcher case.

The rule clearly held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject
to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher. [x]

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY = STRICT LIABILITY – EXCEPTIONS

7
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/no-fault-liability/

16
The court gave two basic reasons justifying the rule:

1. Any enterprise carrying on hazardous activities for private profits have the social
responsibility to compensate those suffering from any accident and it should absorb such
loss as an item of overhead expenses.
2. The enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard against such hazards and
dangers.

This is the clear explanation of the absolute liability or the rule of M.C.Mehta v Union of India.
The court also laid down the measures of compensation to be paid by the enterprise. It said that
the larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous
or dangerous activity by the enterprise.
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is one of the most devastating accidents in the history. It was a mass
disaster caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases from a plant set
up by the Union Carbide India Ltd. for the manufacture of pesticides in Bhopal on the night of
December 2, 1984. UCIL is a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a multinational
company registered in U.S.A. More than 27 tons of methyl isocyanate and other deadly gases
turned Bhopal into a gas chamber. None of the six safety systems at the plant were functional,
and Union Carbide’s own documents prove the company designed the plant with ‘unproven’ and
‘untested’ technology, and cut corners on safety and maintenance in order to save money.
[xi] The disaster resulted in the death of at least 3000 persons and there were serious diseases
and injuries to many people. Some people permanently lost their eyes, hearing senses, some
suffered from neurological disorders and scores of other complications.

The Supreme Court laid the rule of absolute liability in preference to the strict liability. The
defence of the UCC on the grounds of sabotage was rejected and the principle laid by the
Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta v Union of India was followed.

The rule clearly held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject
to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

17
It was thus hoped that the victims would be able to get relief without further much delay. To see
to it that the victims of the handling of hazardous substances can get expeditious relief through
insurance, The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was passed.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

This act has the major aim of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident
occurring while handling any hazardous substances for matters connected with the incident. It
has the goal of providing public liability insurance. This act gained the assent of the President on
the 22nd of January, 1991. This act says that every owner who works with hazardous substances
and hires employees to control those dangerous things, shall have policies and insurances where
he will be insured against liability to give relief in case of death or injury to a person or damage
to property arising from the accident caused while carrying on the hazardous activities. In respect
of already established units, insurance policies had to be taken as soon as possible and the rule
gave the owners the time of one year to get into the insurance contracts. This liability was based
on the principle of ‘no fault liability’.

Hazardous substance means any substance or preparation which by reason of its chemical or
physic-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
creatures, plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment. The term ‘handling’ in relation
to any hazardous substance means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage,
transportation by vehicle, use, collection, destruction, sovereign, offering for sales, transfer of the
like of such hazardous substance. This is the clause in the Section 2(c) of the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991. Therefore, this is the clear expression of the rule of the absolute liability 
laid down in M.C. Mehta v Union of India.

 Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages
and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely
equitable obligation. There are many principles governing the law of torts. Generally, a
person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for the acts
done by others. If an individual commits a fault, he is liable for it. However, there is a
principle which claims an individual liable without his being at fault. This is the ‘no fault
liability principle’. In this case, the liable person may not have done any act of negligence or
may have put in some positive efforts but the rule claims him for the compensation. This
principle has its roots in the two landmark cases- Rylands v Fletcher (strict liability) and
M.C.Mehta v Union of India(absolute liability).

 The principle of strict liability clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in
his premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes
damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person
keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.
Whereas the rule of absolute liability held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in
the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is
strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

18
 Both these rules follow the ‘no fault liability principle’, a principle in which the defendant is
held liable even if he is not directly or indirectly responsible for the damages caused to the
plaintiff.

 The act of krane chemicals attracts the liability under the principle of strict liability and
absolute liability because if anyone is dealing with some inherently dangerous substance ,
then one has to take extra care because if that inherently dangerous object escapes the
premises of the holder , it can cause great amount of damage and in such case the holder of
such inherently dangerous object will be liable strictly and absolutely for all the damages
caused by escaping of that inherently dangerous object.

CHAPTER5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The novel finds Grisham in familiar territory—the courtroom—but it begins in an

unconventional way: with the end. When the verdict is announced in the novel's first chapter,
readers are immediately thrown into the case and the controversy that surrounds it. The husband-
and-wife legal team of Wes and Mary Grace Payton is representing Jeannette Baker in an effort
to prove that her son and husband died as a result of contaminated water. On the other side of
this battle is the chemical company accused of dumping toxic waste into the water supply. After
a protracted trial and agonizing deliberations, the jury finally delivers its verdict. The chemical
company appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court, though lawyers don't anticipate a favorable
outcome. Enter Wall Street billionaire and chemical company owner Carl Trudeau, who
purchases a court seat with pocket change—a few million dollars. The fate of the case is left up
to the nine state Supreme Court justices, one of whom is ensnared in conspiracy. The judicial
system may never be viewed in quite the same way again.

Grisham's literary dynasty and avid fan following have been built on his remarkable ability to
produce a blockbuster novel every year, nine of which have been turned into feature films.
Beginning with 1991's The Firm, his second novel and first big success, Grisham established his
place in thriller history by writing suspenseful tales about the judicial system. Fans have come to
expect frequent twists and turns that leave them on the edge of their armchairs.
8
Though Grisham has made successful detours from this formula recently, with the comic
novel Playing for Pizza and his first nonfiction work, The Innocent Man, his return to the legal
fiction realm is an event long anticipated by both avid readers and Grisham himself. "I still enjoy
writing the legal thrillers," Grisham has said of his latest book, "and don't plan to get too far
8
https://bookpage.com/reviews/5607-john-grisham-grishams-latest-legal-thriller-has-sure-appeal-with-readers-
mystery-suspense#.Xphe_8gzZPY

19
away from them. Obviously, they have been very good to me, and they remain popular. I plan to
write one a year for the next several years." Grisham, who turns 53 this month, has more than
225 million books in print worldwide, and his work has been translated into 29 languages. A
decade ago, Publishers Weekly estimated that Grisham's earnings had made him a billion-dollar
man. Not bad for someone who began writing as a hobby. The Arkansas native and Ole Miss-
educated author's pastime evolved into a career—though only 5,000 initial copies were printed of
his 1988 debut A Time to Kill, which took him three years to write—after years of practicing law.
His detailed mastery of the legal genre, which focuses on lawyers and their associates, is due in
part to his personal understanding of the legal system.

Grisham's most recent appearance in a courtroom came in 1996, when he honored a long-
standing commitment to represent the family of a railroad brakeman killed in an accident. A jury
awarded the family more than $600,000 in the case. Grisham, who served in the Mississippi
legislature during the 1980s, retains a keen interest in politics (he hosted an early fundraiser for
Hillary Clinton in 2007) but says he has no intention of running for office again. "I enjoy
watching and participating in politics from the sidelines, but it's best to keep some distance," he
says.

Bookstore patrons and moviegoers may find it difficult to keep their distance from the nonstop
writer—and who'd want to?—but there is little risk of a complete Grisham overload: Though his
work can be found on the bookshelves and the big screen, don't expect to catch him pitching
Gillette razors while you're flipping channels. The intensely private author continues to refuse
offers of personal appearances and sponsorship, and he seems to live a tranquil life. He and his
family divide their time between a home in Mississippi and a plantation near Charlottesville,
Virginia, remaining largely out of the public eye. This eagerly anticipated return to the genre that
made Grisham a household name is another page-turning installment from start to finish. A
verdict has been reached: The people are craving another Grisham legal thriller.

Possible the biggest (of several) problems in this story is the lack of a central character. In every
other Grisham novel, you knew where the central theme of the story was focused on and who
was at the focal point. At no time was I actually aware of the central character here. Now it is
okay to have an "ensemble cast" (which has been made popular in many prime time television
shows), but there was not really an "ensemble" here. The story bounced between four or five
weak characters such as CEO Carl Trudeau, the husband and wife attorney team of Wes and
Mary Grace Payton, current Supreme Court justice Sheila McCarthy, and heavily backed
challenger Ron Fisk. By the end, it appears Fisk is thrown into the central focus of the story
(after being omitted from the first one third of the novel). In itself, this style of using characters
is not automatically a negative point. But when none of these characters are developed well or
even likable it can present a problem. Because the drama is jumped around so often, no one has a
chance to develop outside of their two dimensional introductions (save for a minor plot point
involving Ron Fisk at the climax).

20
9
The actual story moved along at a fairly decent pace, considering that--outside of a comedic
political campaign that kept things lively--not much going on was very gripping.
In a minor way, the conclusion of the novel was suppose to be a teaching lesson of the dark
private finances that go on behind the scenes in the political world and how the minority of men
with money can easily shape this world. I am going to have to say I was not honestly moved by
this plot device.
Admittedly, the summary on the backside of this novel (assuming you have the paperback) did
seem gripping; but the story itself never moves up into that higher gear like you would hope it
would. Rather then picking up The Appeal, I would rent the John Travolta movie A Civil
Action--which is based on a novel that which had a very similar plot to this story. In that story,
there is a central character who is involved in a similar case (chemicals, water, cancer, etc.) in a
small town and who is also letting the big company financially drain his resources and bringing
down the collapse of his small firm. Yes, exactly in the way we see here with the firm of Payton
& Payton. However, with the John Travolta character, Jan Schlichtmann, you can see a great
performance and a character that puts his heart and soul into this case and even borders obsession
regarding it. A type of performance or development that was utterly lacking with The Appeal.
And, to conclude one final point, without giving any spoilers, the ending is extremely
disappointing. When done correctly. it could have been motivational, but here, as with the rest of
this story, the ending was very flat and made no emotional impact on me.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

THE APPEAL BY JOHN GRISHAM

9
www.kickinglettuce.com

21
SECONDARY SOUCES

1. www.kickinglettuce.com

2. https://bookpage.com/reviews/5607-john-grisham-grishams-latest-legal-thriller-has-sure-appeal-with-
readers-mystery-suspense#.Xphe_8gzZPY

3. http://allreaders.com/book-review-summary/the-appeal-41213

4. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/no-fault-liability/

22