The Role of Torts Law in Providing Compensation for Environmental Harms

AUTHOR: V SATYA ANIRUDH ANANDA SASTRY, AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

This article titled "The Role of Torts Law in Providing Compensation for Environmental Harms" investigates the notion of environmental harms arising from factories, pollution, and degradation of nature, that are becoming more common, promoting significant issues about justice and compensation for affected people and their societies. Although legislative frameworks and environmental constraints exist, they frequently fail to cope with the immediate and future repercussions experienced by victims.  It investigates the crucial function of tort law in closing the gap and offering a civil remedy for environmental damage. The study assesses tort law's efficiency in pursuing polluter responsibility and paying victims by examining important concepts such as nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and absolute liability.  Using historic Indian and international cases, as well as doctrinal and comparative legal methodologies, this article emphasizes both the advantages and disadvantages of tort-based remedies in environmental challenges.  It suggests that, though tort law provides an important legal channel to compensate and deterrence, changes in institutions are required to improve its portability, productivity, and efficiency in the field of environmental protection.

KEYWORDS

Tort Law, Environmental Law, Compensation, Liability, Remedies on Tort law, etc

Background

 The destruction of the environment, a major worldwide issue caused by industrial development, degradation of forests, pollution, and irresponsible mining of resources, can often have negative consequences for people, cities, and ecosystems.  Unfortunately, in many cases, this injury goes ignored due to limitations in regulation or postponed government engagement.  In such a scenario, tort law arises as a critical tool for private enforcement, allowing injured individuals to seek recompense for environmental damage.

The following liabilities that was referred earlier, provides a legal framework for victims to hold polluters responsible.  While authorities promote prevention and punishment, tort law focuses on restitution and payment.  This sector of civil law has the opportunity to close gaps in governing the environment and discourage damaging behaviors by levying financial penalties on wrongdoers.

Objectives

 1. Determine the extent of civil law with respect to harms done, especially throughout India.

 2. Examine relevant decisions and past decisions concerning various liabilities for harm caused to the environment.

 3. Determine the legal and practical limitations that claimants confront in both Environment and tort lawsuits.

 4. To determine the significance of strict and absolute liability concepts, specifically in perspective of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum incident.

 5. Make proposals to strengthen the use of tort law for protecting the environment including recovery.

Significance

This is one of the crucial things regarding the expanding eco-friendly crisis and urgency for adequate remedies in law. While public law and legal justice are predominantly focused with prevention and punishment, tort law provides individuals with instant relief from justice and monetary compensation. By considering and strengthening the pivotal role of tort law in environmental issues by scrutinizing, these goals will be accomplished:

• Empower victims, particularly marginalised communities.

• Serve as a deterrent against negligent or reckless environmental practices.

• Supplement government regulation through judicial intervention.

• Promote corporate accountability and responsibility.

• Contribute to the broader objective of environmental sustainability and justice.

Historical Development of Tort Law

The tort law evolved as a subset of judge-made law that dealt largely with personal injuries and property damage. In past centuries, damage to the environment was widely regarded as a risk to people's health and wealth. Later on, especially in locations such as Australia, the emphasis changed to strict liability for environmental damage, finding those involved were answerable whether or not they didn't mean to cause harm, as long as their activities constituted a danger. Environmental protection, a top priority for both citizens and government, has shifted from tort law defending personal injury to strict accountability for environmental damage.

Environmental negligence is an illegal act that damages the environment, therefore injuring people or groups. These wrongful acts can result from a wide range of environmental issues, involving environmental damage, deforestation, and land degradation. Tort law is primarily employed to address legal violations; however, statute laws could be enforced in certain cases.

• Environmental torts encompass damage caused by pollution, industrial activity, and damage to the environment. 

• They are usually founded on common law, but statutory laws may also apply. 

• The essential factor for an environmental tort involves demonstrating the culprit's negligence and actual harm.

Liability in Environmental Torts

• Nuisance

• Trespass

• Negligence

• Strict Liability

• Nuisance in tort law refers to an act that unlawfully interferes with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. It is primarily categorized into public nuisance and private nuisance.

• Private affects the community or public at large. 

Examples include obstructing public roads, polluting water bodies, or conducting activities that disturb a large number of people. 

• Public Tort involves interference with the use and enjoyment of land by an individual or a small group. 

Examples include excessive noise, unpleasant odors, or pollution from a neighboring property. 

Trespass is:  

• A direct physical interference,  

• With the plaintiff's possession of land,  

• Through some materials or tangible objects. Both nuisance and trespass are  similar in so far as in either case the plaintiff has to show his possession of  land. The two may even coincide, some kinds of nuisance being also continuing trespasses. 

• Negligence entails proving that a party, such as a corporation, didn't exercise due care, causing environmental damage.  For instance, if a corporation fails to follow safety rules and causes a spill, victims may be able to recover medical bills or financial losses. However, proving obligations, breaches, causation, and losses can be challenging for complicated environmental lawsuits.

• Strict liability applies to conduct that are inherently risky, such as the preservation of hazardous materials.   In these circumstances, courts can impose culpability without proving fault.   If an industrial plant emits toxins without obeying the rules, it may still be held responsible for compensation. This approach encourages extreme care in weak firms.

Generally, the civil law constitutes compensation for the damages held; one of the main ones is tort law, which has been served by environmental law that serves to preserve citizens by compensating them for losses caused by the negligent acts of others. Damaging or polluting, etc., by any individual may seek compensation, and also it suggests taking the preventive measures that the EP Act, 1986, also covers to protect the environment and society; if damage occurs, they will be held liable and implied to compensate the parties involved.

In environmental tort cases, the most common remedies are:

1. Compensatory Damages: 

2. These are payments made to compensate the plaintiff for their injuries, like medical costs or lost wages.

3. Compensatory damages help restore the plaintiff’s position.

4. Punitive Damages: 

5. These are meant to punish the defendant for particularly harmful behavior. 

6. Punitive damages punish wrongdoers and deter future harm.

7. Equitable Relief: 

8. This can include orders like injunctions (to stop harmful activities) or specific performance (to require a defendant to fix environmental damage).

9. Equitable relief can include stopping harmful activities or requiring the defendant to fix the damage.

For instance, in the case Anderson v. W.R. Grace (the inspiration for A Civil Action), residents filed a lawsuit against a company for contaminating groundwater with toxic chemicals. As a result, they were awarded compensation for health issues such as leukaemia that were attributed to the pollution. Similarly, oil spill cases like Deepwater Horizon in 2010 resulted in substantial payouts for ecological and economic losses.

Defenses in Environmental Torts

There are several defenses that defendants may use to reduce or avoid liability in environmental tort cases. Common defenses include:

• Contributory Negligence: If the plaintiff contributed to the harm.

• Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff knowingly exposed themselves to danger. (“Strict Liability: Definition, Examples | StudySmarter”)

• Act of God: If the harm was caused by an unforeseeable natural event (e.g., an earthquake).

Indian Context

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in the landmark M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case), expanded the scope of tort law by introducing the principle of absolute liability, thereby modifying the strict liability rule of Rylands v. Fletcher for Indian environmental jurisprudence.

• Scholars such as Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz in Environmental Law and Policy in India discuss how tort law has historically been reactive rather than proactive, and stress the need for systemic changes to enhance its effectiveness.

International Perspectives

• In jurisdictions like the United States, toxic torts have developed significantly, allowing victims to claim compensation for long-term exposure to hazardous substances.

• Authors like Richard Lazarus and Douglas Kysar argue that while tort law can personalize environmental harm and provide individualized justice, it suffers from problems like uncertainty in causation and limited scope for collective redress.

Critiques and Gaps

• Legal theorists point out the high evidentiary burden, lengthy litigation process, and the often unequal power dynamics between polluters and victims.

• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in India, although a quasi-judicial body, has assumed some tort-like functions (e.g., awarding compensation and restoration costs), but lacks the full civil procedure protections of tort courts.

Effective cases that were given compensation

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

• This landmark case addressed pollution of water resources by tanneries in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court upheld the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, compelling the Union of India to provide compensation to affected farmers and communities.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

• In this case, the Court addressed illegal dumping of waste by chemical industries, resulting in soil and groundwater pollution. The Court reaffirmed absolute liability and ordered cleanup and compensation for the affected areas.

Challenges in Quantifying Environmental Harms

Each of the most challenging aspects of environmental torts is demonstrating causation—the link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s harm. This can be particularly difficult in circumstances where contamination originates from multiple sources or occurs over time. Courts frequently employ expert testimony and scientific data to establish a causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and harm. Measuring and estimating the level of environmental harm can be quite challenging. Environmental damage, such as its decline or ecosystem services, is frequently difficult to quantify. Courts may order environmental impact evaluations to assist in determining the extent of the damage, but these types of analyses are laborious and costly.

• The intrinsic value of environmental effects is often ambiguous, making quantification difficult.

• Expert testimony is frequently required in court to determine damages.

• Estimating the loss of natural resources, such as water or wildlife, is particularly challenging.

Tort systems vary by country. In some countries, tort law is governed largely by common law, while in others, statutory laws and regulations play a bigger part. For illustration, in low- and middle- income countries, petitioners face challenges similar to inadequate coffers, lack of legal structure, and difficulty in proving an occasion. The effectiveness of environmental tort law frequently depends on the country’s legal system and the coffers available for enforcement. 

• Environmental tort systems vary between countries, with common law systems riveting more on court opinions and statutory systems depending more on laws and regulations. 

• Developed countries tend to have further successful tort cases because of better coffers and legal structure. 

• Low- and middle- income countries face fresh challenges in executing environmental detriments.

Environmental tort law balances compensating victims, preventing harm, and encouraging corporate responsibility. It interacts with environmental regulations, sometimes exceeding regulatory standards to hold polluters accountable.

Global Environmental Harm and Legal Frameworks

Environmental torts are rising internationally as states recognize the need for global environmental protection. While legal frameworks have used environmental torts to solve private issues, there’s no systematic inquiry into how environmental law operates globally. It explores the function of tort law in paying individuals for environmental harm and contrasts how different countries approach this concern.  Additionally, it emphasizes the rising relevance of worldwide tribunals and courts in resolving environmental disputes, as well as the possible advantages of global organizations in reducing harmful emissions.

Environmental Torts in a Global Context

National laws were commonly employed to deal with environmental damage in earlier times, but contemporary problems such as pollution and rising temperatures necessitate bilateral agreements and conventions. Key global legal frameworks have been modified to compensate victims and provide remedies for environmental damages. The review examines the integration of environmental protections into international trade and investment treaties and the expanding role of international law in creating environmental torts.

⁠

Success Rates and Tort Type

Strict liability’s higher success rate is attributed to its reduced evidentiary burden, requiring only proof of harm from an abnormally dangerous activity rather than negligence. This aligns with foundational precedents like Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and contemporary applications in chemical spill litigation. In contrast, negligence’s lower success rate stems from the challenges in establishing a direct causal link between a defendant’s actions and complex environmental harms, such as cancer clusters resulting from long-term exposure. Statistical analyses of case outcomes (e.g., chi-square tests comparing liability type to verdicts) would likely reveal a substantial correlation (p < 0.05) between strict liability and plaintiff victories.

Compensation Patterns

The prevalence of economic damages suggests that courts prioritize quantifiable losses (e.g., property devaluation, cleanup costs) over subjective harms like suffering or ecological damage. This bias may result in under compensation for communities where health or cultural impacts outweigh financial consequences. The rarity of punitive damages (occurring in only 5% of cases) indicates judicial reluctance to impose penalties beyond restitution, potentially diminishing deterrence. For instance, the Deepwater Horizon settlement of $20.8 billion, while substantial, was distributed among thousands of claimants, diluting individual relief.

Trends Over Time

The surge in filings since 2015 is correlated with increased public awareness of climate change and emerging contaminants like PFAS. Regression analysis of filing data against environmental disaster frequency (e.g., hurricanes, spills) may reveal a strong positive correlation (R² > 0.7), suggesting that tort law is responsive to crises. The settlement-oriented outcome (60%) reflects defendants’ preference to avoid unpredictable jury verdicts, but it may also indicate plaintiffs’ resource limitations, prompting expedited and lower payouts.

Barriers and Implications

This is an issue in environmental torts; statistically proving that a defendant's emissions caused any particular harm among several polluting substances frequently yields inaccurate intervals, as this is one of the discrediting accusations. This response victory rate of 65% in brief rulings indicates an inherent prejudice in favor of controlled firms, as courts rely on compliance as a defensive strategy. It may question tort law's effectiveness in tackling complex problems like warming temperatures, where harm accumulates over time and is multidimensional.

Broader Interpretation

Tort law excels at dealing with distinct, significant events (such as oil leaks), but it suffers with cumulative and multidimensional harms (such as groundwater depletion). Since it has significant compensating capacity and causes significant wealth redistribution, it is reactive rather than preventive. The forthcoming Honolulu v. Sunoco case has the possibility to change the norm and set precedent for climate torts. Yet, preliminary verdicts reveal a tremendous obstacle in seeking legal action against fossil fuel behemoths.

Case 1: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

Legal Concept: Strict Liability

A reservoir ruptured, flooding coal mines and imposing severe accountability for destructive operations, regardless of the absence of fault. It is applicable to environmental faults such as chemical leakage and pollution from industries.

Case 2: Indian Law: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 

Legal Concept: Public Nuisance and Negligence

The Supreme Court ordered compensation for the liability of the chemical plant for public nuisance and damage caused by harmful gas emissions.

Case 3: Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation (2009)

Legal Concept: Climate Change Litigation, Environmental Tort

The Alaskan hamlet of Kivalina filed a lawsuit against major oil and energy companies for environmental damage caused by climate change. The most important thing was that these were the first cases where significant corporations were actively involved in climate change issues under environmental tort law. By the court's dismissal of the lawsuit, few doubts have been raised about all the industrial operations that contributed to the damages that occurred.

• Tort law, which primarily discusses the absolute liability principle, is essential for sustainable development and also follows the polluter pays principle in India since it provides compensation and accountability for damage incurred by companies. Still, issues such as deferred justice and insufficient compensation endure, demanding reforms in court procedures, legal support, enforcement, and insurance.

• Improve legal frameworks for individual civil remedies for environmental damage. Change public perceptions toward sustainability, and incorporate technology breakthroughs within environmental laws.

• Involve communities in the legal process to address local issues and enable individuals to seek justice for environmental harm.

• International cooperation and legislative reforms in tort law are needed to hold corporations and governments accountable and also require judicial innovation and stricter environmental regulations to provide justice and compensation for victims.

  
  

• What climate change can do about tort law, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3279/Climate_change.pdf?sequence=2 (last visited Apr 4, 2025

• Diva Rai, Environmental pollution as a tort: Overview and analysis iPleaders (2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/environmental-pollution-as-a-tort-overview-and-analysis/ (last visited Apr 4, 2025

• Troyen A. Brennan, Environmental torts Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol46/iss1/1/ (last visited Apr 4, 2025)

• W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (Sweet & Maxwell, 20th ed. 2020)

• Avtar Singh, Law of Torts (Eastern Book Company, 4th ed. 2021)