ASSIGNMENT 1

TOPIC- ACT OF GOD (VIS MAJOR)

SUBMITTED TO - Dr AMBIKA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED BY-
AKSHARA POPLI
1ST YEAR BBA-LLB
1120202155

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial number Heading Page No.

1. Acknowledgement 3
2. Executive Summary 4
3. Introduction 5
4. Act of God- Vis Major 7
5. R.R.N Ramalinga Nadar v. V. Narayana Reddiar 9
6. Nichols v. Marsland 10
7. Kallulal and Anr. v. Hemchand and Ors. 11
8. Conclusion 13
9. Bibliography 14

2
 Acknowledgement

Every project, however big or small it may be and however important it is, is successful largely
due to the efforts and dedication of a number of persons who have helped in whatever way they
can, by providing information related to it or by giving advice that is essential in the completion
of the project. I sincerely appreciate the assistance of these people and thank them for their
support and guidance that was instrumental in making this project a success.
I, Akshara Popli, a student of Himachal Pradesh National Law University (Shimla), am grateful
to the University for the confidence bestowed in me and entrusting my ability.
I also appreciate and extend my thanks to my project guide, Dr Ambika, who mentored me while
compiling the project. Her insight has been extremely valuable in the completion of this project.
I would like to extend my last word of gratitude to everyone else involved in helping me with the
assignment.

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the law of torts, the act of God can be construed as a form of cause of
intervention, the absence of which may have stopped the cause or reduced the consequence of
liability, e.g., if not for an earthquake, the old building would still be erect. Predictable effects of
unpredictable causes can however, also increase liability. For example, a lightning bolt hits a
ship carrying combustible propellant, resulting in the foreseen explosion.

Often the term "act of God" is used to refer an occurrence to a divine action. It is also
used in connection with a natural disaster or catastrophic incident. In legal terminology, the word
"act of God" is not synonymous with any specific system of worship or belief. Contract terms
pertaining to acts of God are known as force majeure provisions, and are also used by insurance
agencies. These provisions usually restrict or exclude responsibility for deaths, costs and losses
suffered by acts of God. For example, if anyone agrees to be present to conduct a certain duty on
a certain day, but is unable to do so when a big storm cuts off all practical means of transport to
the office, it could be called an act of God that will excuse performance. A refund or
rescheduling will also be required, but direct responsibility under the contract may be avoided in
full or in part as a consequence of the storm.

4
INTRODUCTION
In civil law, common law and an extensive share of the legal arrangements that are derived from
them, a tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a
civil wrong for which courts impose liability. The word ‘Tort’ is derived from the phrase ​tortum,
which is Latin for “something that is twisted, crooked or wrung”. In the context of Torts, injury
is described by the infringement of any legal right. In contrast, the damage is characterised by
deprivation or loss suffered by an individual or a group of individuals.

Any tort is considered to be a ‘civil wrong’ for which the plaintiff or the affected part can seek
legal redressal. In the usual course of happening, the injured party claims unliquidated damages,
i.e., monetary reparation which had not previously been decided and agreed to by both the
parties. The final verdict on the type and extent of the compensation is delivered in the court of
law by a judge, who makes the decision based on the situation, facts and severity of the injury
suffered by the plaintiff.

In the case of torts, the defendant is eligible for pleading one of the general or specific defences
that can be used to escape liability. The available defences have a predetermined set of actions
that are a necessary part of their applicability in a particular case and can be used in an extensive
collection of wrongs. For instance- the general defence of inevitable accident can be taken for
torts like trespass, nuisance, etc. However, some defences are peculiar to a specific wrong. For
instance- in a case of trespass, the defendant can take the specific defence of contributory
negligence or prevention of trespass.
The general defences available to defendants for escaping liability in most cases are:
a) Volenti Non-Fit Injuria- This is also known as the defence of consent and is taken
in cases where the plaintiff has voluntarily consented to the harm inflicted to
them.
b) Plaintiff the Wrongdoer- This defence allows the defendant to be acquitted from
his charges if the plaintiff has engaged in illegal or wrong acts. This defence
arises from the maxim “Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Action” which means that no
action arises from an immoral cause.

5
 c) Inevitable Accident- If the defendant can prove that the injury caused by their
actions is accidental, i.e. unforeseeable and unintentional, then it becomes a
defence of inevitable accident.
d) Act Of God- This defence is also known as Vis Major and requires the defendant
to prove in the court that the injury caused to the plaintiff is due to an unexpected
event which is unforeseeable by human prudence. It is usually claimed in cases of
exceptional situations caused by natural forces like tsunamis, earthquakes,
cloudbursts, forest fires, etc.
e) Private Defence- The defendant can claim this defence if they can prove that their
actions were a consequence of immediate threat from the plaintiff, were of
reasonable proportion to the danger and imminent for the safety of the defendant.
f) Mistake- Although the defence of a mistake of fact or law is generally not
accepted in the act of tort, in a few exceptions the defendant is permitted to take
this defence of acting under their unintentional and mistaken belief.
g) Necessity- This defence exempts those defendants from a liability who have
caused injury to the utterly innocent plaintiff out of absolute necessity in order to
prevent more significant damage even if the harm caused was intentional.
Necessity differs from Private Defence in the form that in a case of necessity, the
plaintiff is an innocent victim of the defendant’s actions, whereas the plaintiff is
the wrongdoer in the case of Private Defence.
h) Statutory Authority- If any act is done under the authority of an Act, then it is not
actionable even if it may have been a tort in any other circumstance and the
plaintiff cannot claim any compensation, except for whatever may have been
provided for by the statute.

Since Torts is a relatively novel subject of law in India, the Indian Judiciary relies heavily on the
precedents set by other western countries following the common law jurisdiction such as
Australia, Canada, etc. However, such decisions are taken while heeding to the Indian
socio-cultural practices and constraints.

6
ACT OF GOD- VIS MAJOR
Vis Major, commonly used interchangeably with Force Majeure (Higher Power or
Superior Force) in civil law, has been defined as a greater or superior force; an irresistible force.
A loss that results immediately from a natural cause without the intervention of man, and could
not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and care. An honest and
inevitable necessity, and one which arises wholly above the control of human agencies, and
which occurs independently of human action or neglect. Generally speaking, it is not an
inducement for a court to label a natural occurrence as an act of God, such as an extreme weather
case. Hurricane Katrina has been considered by several courts to be an act of God. And even less
extreme weather conditions will fulfil the description if they are rare and unexpected, such as
abnormally cold weather.

The definitions of force majeure and God's act are related, and force majeure basically
implies a greater power or superior influence. But not all force-majeure events, or vice versa, are
actions of God. Instead, under a force majeure clause, an act of God is usually defined as one of
many incidents that may cause an excuse for nonperformance. An Act of God is typically only
one of a sequence of enumerated unfortunate incidents imagined by parties at the beginning of a
contractual partnership that may interfere with their success down the road. An "Act of God" is
commonly understood to include only unexpected natural occurrences. At the same time, force
majeure is broader in its scope and encompasses both events that occur spontaneously and events
that occur because of human interference. Nevertheless, both definitions produce the same
implications in law.

As a response to liability, if a defendant pleads an act of God, they can deny that they
were at fault. Often, however, the defendant denies causation when depending on this plea. They
might admit that they were careless, but argue that even though they had taken due caution, the
harm that the plaintiff claims would still have occurred and should therefore not be kept guilty of
such damages. However, the defendant would be required to prove that all essential requirements
for an event to be declared an Act of God, were met. These requirements are listed below:

7
a) The cause of the event should be wholly inevitable and unforeseeable by the human
mind. The occurrence of the event should be exclusively due to extraordinary natural
forces like extreme rainfall, snowfall, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. The defendant becomes
liable for their inability to perform their duty unless they can prove that the event was
caused due to such extraordinary forces.

b) The defendant should have taken all reasonable care to prevent the event from happening.
If the defendant can prove that they had exercised all the reasonable care while
performing their duty and that there was nothing that they could do to prevent the event
from taking place, then they can take this defence.

8
R.R.N. RAMALINGA NADAR v V. NARAYANA REDDIAR

a) CASE SUMMARY
The respondent was running a business of providing lorry services. The appellant had
hired the respondent to transport 18 bags of green gram from the Kanyakumari district of Madras
state to Quilon. The defendant obtained the goods for shipment to Quilon, but the goods were not
shipped to Quilon as decided previously. The Plaintiff, R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar, filed a suit
against the defendant, V. Narayana Reddiar, for the realisation of the price of goods.

The lorry was ambushed by a jatha, carried out as a part of an ongoing farmer’s agitation,
and the goods were robbed by the agitated mob that had gathered to carry out the jatha on the
lorry’s way to Quilon. The defendant claimed that the incidents leading up to the accident were
beyond their control, and therefore the defendant was not liable for the loss of goods. The court
contemplated whether the defendant is liable in this case.

Although the honourable judges concurred that the incident was an inevitable accident
and that there was no evidence of negligence of want or care, the defendant was held liable for
the loss of goods by virtue of being a common carrier. The definition and scope of a common
carrier were scrutinised to ascertain if the defendant fulfilled the essential requirements of being
a common carrier and the extent of their liability. The defendant would have been able to claim
that they were not liable only if the loss had been caused due to an act of god (vis major) or the
king’s enemies. However, this incident did not occur due to extraordinary natural forces but
rather, due to human agency.

a) INTERPRETATION
All acts of god can be classified as an inevitable accident, but this does not hold for the
vice-versa. Inevitable acts can be divided into two sub-categories - i) events caused by natural
forces and ii) events caused by human agency. The first category is known as the act of god, but
the second category cannot be considered as an act of god. The event needs to be of an
extraordinary nature, utterly devoid of human intervention and unforeseeable by any amount of
care or precaution to be declared as an act of god. The event must not be ordinary or an accident

9
caused by man but an extraordinary situation, although not necessarily a completely novel
experience.

NICHOLS V MARSLAND

a) CASE SUMMARY
The defendant was the owner of a series of artificial ornamental lakes that had existed for
a considerable number of years and had never caused any harm before June 18, 1872. On that
day, however, the reservoirs overflowed after a most unexpected fall of rain, the dams at their
end gave way, and the water from the lakes took away the lower downstream county bridges. On
judicial enquiry, it was discovered that there was no negligence from the defendant and that
extremely heavy and unexpected rainfall is an act of god.

The honourable judge, Mellish LJ made a clear distinction between the verdict delivered
in the Rylands v Fletcher case by stating that in this case the act of maintaining lakes and the
event of overflowing of the said lakes, both are lawful. It was the superseding flood that caused
the water to overflow into the reservoir and cause the damage. This flood was not generated by
any human intervention and was entirely a consequence of natural forces.

The only remaining question was if the defendant was capable of understanding that the
escape of water was an act of god. The jury established that there was absolutely no negligence
in the foundation and maintenance of the reservoirs. Still, the flood was so devastating that it
could not have been reasonably envisioned. Although the flood was not greater than the previous
ones and could be expected to happen once again, the defendant was not held liable for the
damage caused by an extraordinary event that they could neither prevent nor predict.

b) INTERPRETATION
In this case, it was identified that unforeseeability of the extraordinary event is an
important antecedent to relieve the defendant of their liability. Even if the incident in
itself is of considerably less severity in comparison to other incidents of its category, the

10
 lack of reasonable foresight of its occurrence is of paramount importance. The defendant
needs to prove that the inability of taking preventive measures was due to the sheer
suddenness of the incident and not due to negligence. This case also sets a precedent of
finding the exact cause of the incident that led to the loss and not merely relying on the
events leading up to the incident that caused the damage.

KALLULAL AND ANR. V HEMCHAND AND ORS.

a) CASE SUMMARY
The defendant owned a house with a wall adjoining to the highway, and the
plaintiffs set up a thela (four-wheeled stalls) next to the aforementioned wall for several
years before leading up to the incident. On 25th August 1947, while it was raining, the
wall collapsed and led to the instant deaths of plaintiff 1’s two children- Vijay Kumar
(6.5 years) and Suraj Bai (10 years). Plaintiff 1 had entrusted his stall of hosiery cloths to
his children while he had gone home for lunch.

The defendants claimed that the wall did not collapse due to any negligence of
care and that the house was not in a dilapidated condition. They also claimed that while
they were owners of the house, it had been occupied by tenants for the past few years.
They claimed that this incident could not have been reasonably predicted or provided for,
and so it was an act god.

However, the court found that the wall was, in fact, in a dilapidated condition
with three large cracks that the defendants did not care to repair. The doctrine of res ipsa
loquiter was applied in this case because the court believed that the collapse of the wall
was prima facie evidence of its condition. Several witnesses, including the defendants’
mason, testified that the wall had not been repaired or even whitewashed in the past
years. The rainfall during the monsoon season in 1947 was not extraordinary and
therefore did not classify as an act of god. The learned counsel for the defendants claimed
that the defendants did not reside in the house, but had leased it out to tenants, so the

11
responsibility of the maintenance of the wall was that of their tenants and that the burden
of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the defendants had knowledge about the cracks
in the walls. The court quashed these by stating that the responsibility of maintaining a
house on the highway lies with the owner and not the occupier at the time. Unless it is the
fault of a passer-by or a third party with the owner not having any knowledge, the
liability of the damage caused by any mishappening to the house is that of the owner.

b) INTERPRETATION
In this case, it was made clear that the mere occurrence of an event caused by
natural forces does not meet the requirement of it being an act of god. It is imperative for
the event to be extraordinary, so much so that it cannot be predicted or prevented by any
measure. It was again found that the leading cause of the damage is of utmost importance
for the final verdict. Here, it was the cracks in the wall that led to the collapse of the wall
and not the rainfall on that day. The cracks could have been repaired by the owner, which
would have prevented the damage caused and thus, this accident was avertable through
human foresight and due care.

12
CONCLUSION

Acts of God provisions apply to incidents beyond human influence, such as flash
flooding, hurricanes or other natural disasters. These clauses remove or restrict responsibility for
accidents or other damages arising from such incidents. In contract law, an act of God can be
viewed as a protection against violation for failure to act on the grounds of principles of
absurdity or impracticability. Where an act of God intervenes in the execution of a contract, a
commitment to execute is always made due to an unexpected situation and the subsequent
interruption, cost, or other circumstances which might otherwise constitute a violation.

Through the cases of RRN Ramalinga Nadar vs V. Narayana Reddiar, Nichols v.

Marsland, and Kallulal and Anr. v. Hemchand and ors. The various essential elements of an act
of god were brought out. These essentials include, but are not limited to occurrence of the event
due to natural forces, extraordinariness of the event, lack of human foresight in predicting the
event and the event being the direct cause of the damage.

13
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amanda M Waide & Christina Hull Eikhoff, Litigation Advisory: Is the COVID-19 Outbreak an
“Act of God”? Why It May Matter for Your Contracts Alston and Bird (2020),
https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-outbreak-an-act-of-god
/​ (last visited Dec 5, 2020).

Apurva vishwanath, Explained: What counts as ‘Act of God’?, The Indian Express, September 7,
2020, at
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/act-of-god-covid-19-lockdown-economy-impact-658
3530/

Basil S. Markesinis, Tort Encyclopædia Britannica (2019), ​https://www.britannica.com/topic/tort

(last visited Nov 30, 2020).

Henry Campbell Black, Text of Definitions, in Black's Law Dictionary 1819–1819 (4th ed.
1968), ​https://www.latestlaws.com/​ (last visited Dec 2, 2020).

R. K. Bangia & Narender Kumar, R.K. Bangia's the law of torts: including Motor Vehicles Act,
Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act (2018).

R.R.N. RAMALINGA NADAR v V. NARAYANA REDDIAR,

14