DEFENCE IN THE ACT OF GOD

AUTHOR: PRIYANKA VERMA, CITY ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE (LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY)

Abstract

Sometimes, nature just does stuff we can’t control—like floods, earthquakes, or big storms. The law actually has a rule for this and calls it “Act of God.” What’s the point? Well, it means that if something really wild happens and it’s totally nature’s fault (no one saw it coming), then you don’t have to pay for the damage. This came up a lot for old court cases, like when a building fell over during heavy rain. If the rain was normal and the building wasn’t fixed up properly, the court says, “Nope, that’s on you.” But if the weather was super intense and no one could stop it, then you might get away with the Act of God defence. Lots of smart people tried to explain where to draw the line. Some say if regular care would have stopped it, you’re out of luck. Others say only stuff totally out of human control counts. Still, courts don’t give a pass if you were careless, even just a bit. That's why this rule doesn’t work if bad maintenance plays a part. This is not like accidents people cause; “Act of God” is next-level—stuff science and planning can’t even touch. Honestly, I get why courts are so strict. If we could use this excuse for every problem, nobody would ever be responsible for anything. So, courts check carefully if it was really just nature or if someone left a loose end

Keywords- Act of God, Tort Law, Force Majeure, Negligence, Liability, Natural Disaster

Introduction

When an event that the defendant has no control over occurs and the damage is caused bythe forces of nature, the defense of an act of God is used in tort cases. In such instances, thetort law will not hold the defendant responsible for such unintentional harm. The terms "Act of God," "Vis Major," and "Force Majeure" can all be used to describe circumstances againstwhich human prudence is not obligated to recognize the possibility and which, when theydo occur, are calamities for which there is no obligation to pay for the consequences. In common usage, "an act of the god" refers to any natural event, such as a storm, fall, orwind, for instance, but in law, it refers to an unusual, unprecedented, or unlikely naturalevent."An operation of natural forces so unexpected to anticipate it," it is defined by Pollock."Acts of God are those that a man cannot prevent by exercising reasonable caution,"Salmond defines it. Such occurrences cannot be caused by human intervention because theyare the result of natural processes."An act of god is something in opposition to the act of man" is Lord Mansfield's definition.When an occurrence that the defendant has no control over occurs and the forces of natureBecause of the damage, the defense of an "Act of God" is used. Under tort law, the defendant isnot liable for such unintended harm. The term "acts of God" refers to occurrences thathumans cannot foresee, of which human wisdom is not obligated to recognize thepossibility, and which, when they do occur, do not entail the obligation to bear theconsequences.The phrase "A loss that comes instantly from a natural cause without the intervention ofman and could not have been averted by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and care" isderived from the Latin words vis (force) and major (greater). In such circumstances, a personcan also be released from the duties he is required to perform under a specific contract.The concept of vis major refers to superior power. It refers to an unavoidable incident inlegal terms. Similar to how the Act of God is used in common law, this term is used in civil law. In addition, a visa major does not cause harm to anyone. As a result, we are able to draw the conclusion that the act was completely and directlycaused by natural events without the intervention of humans and that no amount offoresight, care, or effort could have prevented it.Act of God cases, also known as "Force Majeure" provisions, are frequently mentioned, butThe definition of what constitutes an act of God is frequently misunderstood.An Act of God defense might be available in the event of a natural disaster like a flood,tornado, earthquake, or other event beyond human control. When this occurs, the injuriesor losses caused by the incident are contained or eliminated.

Literature Review

There are a number of articles, papers and videos made on this topic as it is a highly relevant topic in the current day. Whether the law can help or not is something that would heavily impact the way the world runs and would significantly affect the economy therefore, there are many discourses out there regarding this topic. When one looks for the legal discourse, they share a similar view, raising similar doubts as well. There were a few articles addressing the situation in India as well, saying how the current laws are not fully adapted to the current circumstances.

Methodology

This article relies on a secondary analysis of qualitative data, drawing on a range of existing sources including research papers, articles and other pertinent documents related to the topic. These resources form the essential database for this study. Studying arguments made both for and against the topic is important as it helps to grasp the actual current situation, putting aside any bias.

Essential Elements of Act of God

1. An Occurrence Not Reasonably Predictable

The most fundamental and essential aspect of an "act of God" is the occurrence of anunforeseen event. If the harm or loss was the result of a foreseeable accident that couldhave been avoided, the person who was hurt would be entitled to financial compensation.On the other hand, damage caused by an unpredicted and uncontrollable natural disastercannot be compensated for because it could not have been avoided by human foresight orcaution. In the case of Kallulal v. Hemchand, a building wall collapsed one day after 2.66 inchesof rain. The two children of the respondent died as a result of that. It was decided that thedefendant could not use the defense of an act of God because a lot of the rain that fellduring the rainy season was normal and should have been expected. In addition, according to the courts, the "act of God" defense only applies if the occurrenceis so unusual that it cannot be predicted or expected given the region's long history ofclimate changes. It is only created by man's memory, or documented history. The courtsmay require expert testimony to demonstrate an unexpected event.

2.Without any human intervention causing the alleged damage, it is impossible to prevent.

It suggests that resisting is almost impossible. A failure to take reasonable precautions isconsidered negligence. If the defense of the "Act of God" is to be successful, it must bedemonstrated that the human factor took reasonable care and measures to prevent theharm even if the injury could not be avoided in an event involving a human element. The"act of God" defense will be defeated if carelessness is alleged and demonstrated. If theowner was negligent in maintaining a tree that fell on a bystander, the "Act of God" methodcould not shield him from responsibility. In Nichols v. Marsland (1876), the defendant created several artificial lakes on his land,which also rises. Four of the plaintiff's bridges were washed away by overflowing lakesduring an unusually severe downpour that was referred to as the worst ever recorded. Thedamage was caused by an act of God, so the defendants were found not liable. The act ofGod's protection cannot be invoked in this circumstance if the rainfall is typical for theregion.)

Distinction: Act of God vs. Inevitable Accident

Inevitable Accident-

Accidents are inevitable and can occur as a result of the action of natural forces, humanintervention, or a combination of the two.
Accidents on trains, in traffic, in buildings, etc. are an illustration of this category.
An inevitable accident can be avoided or controlled with extreme care and caution.
A person who drives very cautiously anticipates the inevitable collision.
Regarding that incident, their effect is limited to a few people or a few people only.
It is an Act of God branch.
Tortious liability arising from unavoidable accidents can be subject to strict liability.

When it comes to determining the defendant's tortious liability in the event of aninevitable accident, the courts have broad discretion.

Act of God or Vis Major

God's or Vis Major's acts occur without human intervention. They arise as a result of theinteraction of natural forces.
Earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, etc. are Acts of God and Vis Major as examples.
Modern man has developed advanced scientific technology. However, he is unable toprevent or control the Vis Major/Acts of God.
Modern technology is able to anticipate God's acts before they occur, but it cannot controlthem.
They have an extraordinary effect. The entire population of that area is impacted.
It is in the genus.
In cases of torts resulting from acts of God, strict liability cannot beimposed.
Courts do not have any discretionary authority. They ought to render their verdictregarding the justification of the defendant's tortious liability for an Act of God.

Case Laws & Analysis

Supporting case lawsThe defendant in Nichols v. Marshland owns several artificial lakes on his land. Thebanks of the lakes burst due to unprecedented precipitation, and the plaintiff's four bridgeswere washed away as a result of the escaping water. The plaintiff's bridges were sweptaway by a divine act, and the defendant was found not liable. In contrast to Nichols, the decision in Greenock Corp. v. Caledonian Railway Co. isdifferent. In Nichols v. Marshland, the House of Lords criticized the defense's application. Bybuilding a padding pool for children, the Corporation obstructed and altered the course of astream in this instance. Because of extremely violent rain, water that would normally becarried by the stream overflowed and damaged the plaintiff's property. Rainfall was deemednot to be an act of God. In Manindra Nath v. Mathuradas, the defendants had erected a large sign on top of amovie theater. During a strong storm, a banner with a wooden frame on the hoarding brokeand fell on the plaintiff's head, causing serious injuries. While the defendants claimed thatthe incident was caused by an act of God, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages. It wasdiscovered that the hoarding frame did not have any mechanism that could keep thebanners in place. The hoarding was found to have been improperly placed as a result ofgross negligence and a breach of duty. When it rained, the banner was not secured in a waythat would prevent it from being blown into the street. The defendants ought to have beenaware of the severity of the storms and rain and taken the necessary precautions to preventtragedies like these. In the case of Saraswati Parabhai v. Grid Corporation, AIR 2000 Ori, 13, a livewire caused an electric pole to fall and kill a person. The Grid Corporation was obligated toprovide protection in such storm and rain situations, and the Orissa High Court rejected theAct of God defense.Horn v. Cooper, 248 Va. 417, 448 S.E.2d 403, 1994Property owners downstream suffered damage as a result of a broken earthen dam. Thedefendants claimed that God caused an extraordinary flood.Because a flood is an act of God, it must appear that the event was the sole proximate causeof injury for one to be released from liability.Since there was evidence of carelessness in the construction of dams, human agency playeda role in this instance.

Conclusion

First and foremost, it is essential to establish that the occurrence was the result of naturalforces or unnatural circumstances. It needs to be shown that the event went above andbeyond the usual requirements. This defense can therefore only be used in the event ofsevere weather or natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, or similar events. Afrequently visits a park, but one rainy day, a branch accidentally falls on him, causing himinjury. Because the rainfall was normal and they were careless in not maintaining the parkduring the monsoons, when it was reasonably foreseeable that the trees would requiremore maintenance to prevent such an event, the park authorities cannot use the defense ofan act of God.The idea that a person shouldn't be held responsible for something for which he has no faultis the basis for the Act of God exception in legal statutes. The essential components of theAct of God exception are such that a person has the highest degree of responsibility tocontain the dangerous and harmful substance that is detrimental to society, despite the factthat it does not apply in cases of absolute liability. The person's carelessness is immediatelyimplied by the substance's escape. Act of God as a defense is constantly evolving, andrespondents now frequently use it to avoid liability. This defense should be applied withcare by the courts, and the respondent must have the greatest amount of proof. The court'sThe primary focus is on determining whether the damage or loss was caused by an act of God.When his own carelessness is at play, a party to a contract cannot invoke an Act of Goddefense.Because it shields a person from unwarranted responsibility for circumstances for which heis not at fault, an act of God defense is crucial. This principle serves a distressed party whohas suffered physical and mental losses and is being tried in a court of law even though theyhave not done anything wrong.

References

CASE LAW

A. U.K. & Commonwealth Cases

Nichols v. Marsland, (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 (Eng.).
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (Eng.).
Carstairs v. Taylor, (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 217 (Eng.).
Noble v. Harrison, [1926] 2 K.B. 332 (Eng.).
Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850 (H.L.).
Greenock Corp. v. Caledonian Ry. Co., [1917] A.C. 556 (H.L.).
Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.).
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng’g Co. (The Wagon Mound No. 1), [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C.).
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Exch. 781 (Eng.).
Tennant v. Earl of Glasgow, (1864) 2 M 22 (Scot.).

B. U.S. Cases

Horn v. Cooper, 448 S.E.2d 403 (Va. 1994).

C. Indian Cases

Kallulal v. Hemchand, AIR 1958 MP 48 (India).
Manindra Nath v. Mathuradas, AIR 1940 Cal 185 (India).
Saraswati Parabhai v. Grid Corp. of Orissa Ltd., AIR 2000 Ori 13 (India).
Padmavati v. Dugganaika, AIR 1975 Kant 117 (India).
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (India).
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933 (India).
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 (India).
Municipal Corp. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 (India).
State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators, AIR 1965 SC 17 (India).
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212 (India).
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1 (India).
Rajkot Municipal Corp. v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum, (1997) 9 SCC 552 (India).
Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9 (India).
State of Haryana v. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182 (India).

BOOKS

P.S. Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Butterworths 1967).
R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (23d ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2023).
Salmond & Heuston, Law of Torts (20th ed., Sweet & Maxwell 1992).
Avtar Singh, Introduction to the Law of Torts (LexisNexis 2022).
Pollock, The Law of Torts (15th ed., Stevens & Sons 1951).
J.G. Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th ed., LBC Info. Servs. 1998).
Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort Law (19th ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2014).
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts (28th ed., LexisNexis 2022).
T.C. Hartley, Foundations of European Union Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2014).
S.K. Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights (Central Law Agency 2020).
S. Deakin et al., Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (8th ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2019).
J. Stapleton, Product Liability (Butterworths 1994).
D. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
L. Sealy & S. Worthington, Cases and Materials in Company Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2013).
S.P. Sathe, Tort and Consumer Protection Law (Eastern Book Co. 2015).
A. Dugdale & M. Jones, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (23d ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2020).
A. Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2008).
J. Beatson et al., Anson’s Law of Contract (30th ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2016).

ARTICLES, JOURNALS & ONLINE SOURCES

Journal Articles

A.P. Herbert, The Act of God in Legal Theory, 47 L.Q. Rev. 64 (1931).
M. Jones, Negligence, Fault, and Responsibility, 17 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 43 (1997).

Online Blog / Commentary