In this article you will learn about the Act of God in Tort.
Introduction
Act of God is a general defence used in tort where an event occurs in which the defendant has no control and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In those cases, the defendant will not be held liable. Act of God is also known as Vis Major which is a latin term which means a greater or superior force describing an irresistible natural occurrence neither caused by nor preventable by humans.
The Act of God was defined in the case Ryland v. Fletcher by Justice Blackburn in 1868. Act of god or Vis Major or Supreme forces or Natural forces - an act or occurrence which is direct, sudden, insanely violent, natural, and irresistible act of nature, one which could not be anticipated and could not by any amount of care would have been foreseen, could not be avoided by any amount of care by any individual.
The basis of Act of God is that no one can be held liable for a damage or injury which has been caused by an act of God. It is totally based upon the latin maxim ‘Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam’ meaning an act of God causes legal injury to no one. According to Justice Blackburn, the following essentials must be established by the defendant to take the defence under Act of God :
- The occurrence or incident was operated or initiated by natural force or due to natural forces.
- The occurrence must be extraordinary and cannot be anticipated or foreseen or if it can be foreseen, no one can avoid or prevent by any due amount of care.
Cases
In the case of Nichols v. Marshland, the defendant has constructed a number of artificial lakes on his land, due amount of water was preserved. Precautions, measurements and initiatives were taken that the water should not cross the boundaries during construction. Due to heavy rain such as had never been witnessed in living memory caused the banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit for damage caused to the bridge and demanded compensation. It was held that the plaintiff's bridges were swept by an act of God, an extraordinary act, which cannot be anticipated by human beings and thus, the defendant was not held liable.
In case of Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar, the plaintiff had made reservations for goods with the defendant for transportation. The goods were looted by a mob, the prevention of the act was beyond the control of the defendant. It was held that occurrences outside the control of the defendant cannot be said to be the Act of God. It was held that the destructive or violent acts of mobs cannot be considered an Act of God.
This article on Act of God in Tort is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.