Defence of Act of God (Vis major) and defence of

inevitable accident: A comparative analysis

Submitted By:

Kashish Chhabra

Division B

PRN: 18010224080

Class- BBA LLB

Of

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

August, 2018

Under the guidance of

Mr. Ankur Sharma

Assistant Professor

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “Defence of Act of God (Vis major) and Defence of
Inevitable Accident: A comparative analysis” submitted to the Symbiosis
Law School, NOIDA for Law of Torts, MV Accident and Consumer
protection laws I as part of internal assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of Mr. Ankur Sharma from July to
August. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award
of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the

research has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for

plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr. Ankur

Sharma as well as Director sir, Dr. Prof. C.J. Rawandale who gave me this
golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “Defence of
Act of God and Defence of Inevitable Accident: A comparative analysis”,
which also helped me in doing a lot of research and I came to know more
about so many new things I am really grateful for.

Secondly, I would also like to say thanks to my friends who helped me in

this research project within a limited time frame.
 INDEX

Page No.

1. Introduction 5
2. Research Questions 5
3. Case Involved 6-8
4. Conclusion 8-9
5. Bibliography 9
INTRODUCTION
‘Torts’ in English language is defined as “wrong.” It is derived from the word ‘Tortum’
which means twisted or crooked. In the case of torts, three elements are required to
be fulfilled that are torts as a species of civil rights; torts as a breach of contract; and
the damages given to the defendants.

In act of God, there are certain acts which are not foreseen by human and humans
don’t have any control on it. Thus acts which are controlled by nature’s force
unconnected with the agency of man and other cause will come under the category of
act of God like storm, cyclone, earthquake, flood and blizzard. These cases are not
foreseen act of nature as. It is a natural phenomenon.

There is also theology related to the phrase “Act of God”. The expression
"demonstration of God" is once in a while used to credit an occasion to divine
intercession. Regularly it is utilized in conjunction with a cataclysmic event or
disastrous occasion. A supernatural occurrence, by differentiate, is frequently viewed
as a serendipitous occasion credited to divine mediation. Some think of it as particular
from demonstrations of nature and being identified with destiny or predetermination.

Christian scholars contrast on their perspectives and understandings of sacred text.

R.C. Sproul1 infers that God causes a calamity when he talks about Divine Providence:
"In a universe administered by God, there are no possibility occasions." Others
indicate that God may allow a tragedy to occur23.

An ‘inevitable accident’ or ‘unavoidable accident’ is that which cannot be prevented by

humans or care, caution which means that accident is unavoidable physically. Causes
of this are divided in two parts that is those were occasioned by the elementary forces
of nature and secondly, which is origin by the agency of man. ‘An act of God’ is
relevant to former part.

Somehow, we can relate Act of God and Inevitable Accident altogether. Since they
both are not foreseen by humans and caused naturally but at a single point inevitable
accidents are caused by carelessness of humans. The defences of this inevitable
accident are applicable when there is a case of trespass or negligence. The defences
of Act of God are found out in some cases like Miller v. Town of Casco, it was held
that the plaintiff sued defendant when she was thrown by buggy during riding in the
highway in the town of defendant. But the jury after the court of appeal found that
nobody was liable in that case. So after so many cases it has been concluded that
after seeing situations, liability will be owed to the defendant.
1
 Sproule, R C (1992). Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Tyndale. pp.  61–63.  ISBN  0-8423-2001-6.
2
 "God Allowing Tragedy". Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Archived from the original  on 19 January 2010. Retrieved  30
December  2009
3
Strobel, Lee (July 2012), Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering?, Church Leaders, retrieved 20 January 2013
Research Questions
What happens when unavoidable argument becomes successful?

How is Act of God different from inevitable accident?

Case Analysis
4
NICHOLS V MARSLAND
Facts:

The respondent was the proprietor of a progression of fake fancy lakes, which had
existed for an extraordinary years, and had never past to eighteenth June, 1872
brought on any harm. On that day, in any case, after a most strange rainfall, the
lakes flooded, and the dams at their end gave way, and the lake water diverted the
province spans bring down downstream.

Issue
Whether the plaintiff is supposed to pay the damages caused to the defendant?

Rule of law
This case deals with an act of God that means the situation could not be controlled by
humans as rain cannot be controlled by the hands of humans. The court cited the
case of Rylands v. Fletcher5 in which the defendant had developed a repository to
supply water to his factory. Water got away into adjacent neglected mineshafts, and
thus overwhelmed the offended party's mine. The defendant advanced a finding that
he was liable to pay the damages.

Analysis
The jury came up with no negligence on the grounds of defendant as torrential
rainfall is not in the hands of any human. So this was the case of pure An Act of God
and in this Ryland v. Fletcher was not applicable as there was no compensation given
to defendant. Mellish LJ distincted Ryland v Fletcher: 'Yet the present case is
recognized from that of Ryland - v-Fletcher in this, that it isn't the demonstration of
the litigant in keeping this supply, a demonstration in itself legitimate, which alone
prompts the escape of the water, thus renders wrongful that which however for such
escape would have been legal. It is the supervening Vis major of the water caused by
the surge, which, superadded to the water in the supply (which of itself would have
been harmless), causes the calamity.' the jury have particularly discovered, not just
that there was no carelessness in the development or the upkeep of the repositories,
however that the surge was great to the point that it couldn't sensibly have been
foreseen, despite the fact that, in the event that it had been foreseen the impact may
have been anticipated; and this appears to us in substance a finding that the escape
4
[1876] 2 EX. DIV. 1
5
HL ((1868) LR 3 HL 330, Bailii, [1868] UKHL 1)
of the water was inferable from the demonstration of God. It was without a doubt
shrewdly contended for the appealing party that at any rate the escape of the water
was not owing exclusively to the demonstration of God, in light of the fact that the
heaviness of the water initially in the repositories more likely than not added to
separate the dams, and additionally the exceptional water acquired by the surge. We
think, notwithstanding, that the remarkable amount of water acquired by the surge is
in purpose of law the sole proximate reason for the escape of the water. It is the last
drop which influences the glass to flood.'

Conclusion
Since, no human being can alter the pace of rain or flood so it was futile to sue a case
against defendant and the jury came up with the justified opinion and considered the
case as an act of God however, there was no one who was liable for the damages
caused to the damages.

Holmes V. Mather6
Facts
Defendant’s horse was being driven away by his servant in a public place and then
dogs started barking and then horse was out of control and the servant tried the level
best but cannot control it and defendant said his servant to not to disturb the horse.
While making the horse around the corner, the horse injured the plaintiff. Plaintiff
sued him for trespass and negligence.

Issue
Whether the defendant or his servant was liable for trespass and negligence?

Rule of Law
Trespass is applicable when a person wrongfully enters into someone’s property
irrespective he makes damage or not.
Negligence is applicable when there is some carelessness on the grounds of
defendant when he does something and hurt the plaintiff’s legal right or infringed
his legal right.

Analysis
Trespass would not be applicable in that case since neither defendant nor servant
enter into plaintiff’s property

Negligence would not be applicable since his servant tried his level best to prevent the
accident.

6
(1875) LR 10 Ex.26, 267
 Bramwell B. considered the nature of the tort of trespass but did not specifically
consider the matter of the burden of proof nor the defence of accident in reference to
it; as the judge described it7.

Conclusion
The court decided that defendant was not liable for the trespass and neither the
servant nor the defendant was liable for negligent as servant tried the level best in
that situation to avoid the accident.

Fardon V Harcourt- Rivington8

Facts
The defendant parked his car in the street market and inside the car he left the dog.
The dog in past was always quiet. When the plaintiff was parking his car then the dog
became so excited that he started barking and jumping and during those actions the
car’s glass panel had been broken and the splinter entered into plaintiff’s left eye,
which had to be removed.

Issues
Whether this is inevitable accident or not? And whether defendant is liable on the
grounds of negligence?

Rule of law
Negligence is applicable when someone does something carelessly and hurt the
plaintiff’s legal rights. It comes under the class of inevitable accident.

Analysis
The court cited the case of Searle v. Wallbank9 and jurisdiction held by England and
Wales stated that ‘If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then
to take no precautions is negligence; but if the possibility of danger emerging is only
a mere possibility which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man, then
there is no negligence in not having taken extraordinary precautions’ 10

Conclusion
In an action for damages, the plaintiff could not be able to recover the damages from
defendant as a car with a dog in it was not a thing which was dangerous in itself, and
as the accident was so unlikely there was no negligence in not taking precautions
against it.

Conclusion
7
Ibid., at p.268
8
[1932] All ER Rep 81, (1932) 146 LT 391 
9
HL ([1947] AC 341, [1947] 1 All ER 12, (1947) 176 LT 104, (1947) 63 TLR 24, [1947] LJR
258) 
10
https://swarb.co.uk/fardon-v-harcourt-rivington-1932/ (last updated on 31 st march, 2018)
From this research project, we can conclude the defences of act of God and defences
of inevitable accident after doing research thoroughly. Somehow, I could do the
comparative analysis between those two.

Damages which are resulting from an act of God are not enforceable to anyone as a
defendant does not owe a liability to the plaintiff if the jury is finding that this is the
case of an act of God.

There is a difference between an act of God and inevitable accident as inevitable

accident occur by the intervention of human agency as well as the nature forces while
an act of God occurs without any intervention of human control and occurs only
naturally. Inevitable accidents when handled with utmost care and cautions, they can
be prevented while an Act of God cannot be prevented. Strict liability and negligence
as tortious liability can come under inevitable accidents when look upon the case
deeply. We can say that inevitable accident comes under an act of God. Examples of
inevitable accident are road accidents, train accidents while examples of act of God
are earthquake, tsunami etc.

From this, we can infer that there are some cases when plaintiff is also not liable to
pay compensation if there is an inevitable accident.

Bibliography
1. https://www.scribd.com
2. https://www.coursehero.com
3. http://www.shareyouressays.com
4. http://www.legalservicesindia.co
5. Online Resources:
 Jstor