SHRI VILE PARLE KELVANI

MANDAL’S JITENDRA CHAUHAN

COLLEGE OF LAW

Legal Language, Legal Writing and General

English

An Analysis of the Maxim ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM

SUBMITTED BY-:
Keya Sanjay Shah
FYLLB
B109

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. Sneha Anilkumar

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

While I prepared this project, it is the result of many people's efforts. To begin, I'd like to
express my gratitude to our Professor SNEHA ANILKUMAR for her assistance in
developing the project on ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIUM and for her insightful
suggestions.

I pay my deep sense of gratitude to other teaching and non-teaching staff that encouraged
me to the highest peak and to provide an opportunity to prepare the project. I am
immensely obliged to my friends for their elevating inspiration, encouraging guidance and
kind supervision in the completion of my project.

Last but not least, my parents are an also important inspiration for me. So with due regards
I express my gratitude to them.

2
 Table of Content
Sr. no. Particulars Page no.
1. Introduction 4

2. Legal Definition and Meaning 5

3.
Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam as a General 6
Defence
4.
The Difference Between Act of God and 7
Force Majeure

5. Essentials
8
Act of God and Inevitble Accident Distinguished

Act of God and Negligence 9

6. Case Studies 10
7. Mathematical Equation 11
8. Conclusion 12
9. Bibliography 13

3
INTRODUCTION

A legal maxim is a well-established concept for a legal proposition or policy, typically

expressed in Latin. The majority of these legal maxims date back to the Middle Ages in
European countries that used Latin as their legal language. These proven maxims are
implemented in existing laws and theorems in a reasonable and just manner by courts all over
the world.

These proven maxims are implemented in existing laws and theorems in a reasonable and just
manner by courts all over the world. These defined principles do not have legal force, but
when courts apply them to legal issues, they take on the form of law and serve as the
foundation for sound judgments.

ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM

The tort law is a developing and ever-evolving area, with a conception that has evolved over
centuries. This area is concerned with the concepts that can be used to demand tortious
liability. Simultaneously, many other principles are used to counter these compensation
claims. These counterclaims, or defenses, are used to exonerate those who have been
wrongfully accused of tortious liability and have had claims levied on them. These defenses
have been updated from time to time to keep up with the fundamentals of imposing tortious
liability on an individual—creating a sense of deterrence while maintaining basic justice
principles. ACT OF GOD is one such defense that will be addressed in detail for cases in
the future.

4
LEGAL DEFINITION

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an Act of God as “An act occasioned exclusively by violence
of nature without the interference of any human agency. A natural necessity proceeding from
physical causes alone without the intervention of man. It is an accident which could not have
been occasioned by human agency but proceeded from physical causes alone.”

MEANING

It means that no one is harmed as a result of a divine act. In other words, no one is to blame
for unavoidable mishaps. Act of God is another name for it. An act of God occurs when an
occurrence occurs as a result of natural forces without the intervention of humans. The
predicted occurrence cannot be considered an Act of God.

The predicted occurrence cannot be considered a divine act. If a natural occurrence was
predictable and a person's negligence resulted in an accident, the jury weighs the degree of
negligence before reaching a decision. The law implies that no one is responsible for a divine
act. It's a reference to an accident that is unavoidable as a consequence of an Act of God that
no business or regulation can prevent.

5
ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM AS A GENERAL DEFENCE

When the situation is beyond the defendant's control and the harm is caused by natural
causes, the act of God is used as a defense tactic in tort cases. In such a case, the defendant
would not be held liable in tort for the harm caused inadvertently. In order to use such a
defense, two basic elements must be present. First and foremost, natural forces must be at
work. Second, the case must be exceptional and beyond comprehension. Course of the most
recent but not least, it should be beyond human control.

The presence of a potential Act of God alters the situation  w hen a court recognizes the
defense of an Act of God, the likelihood of an accident is solely determined by the Act of
God, not by the injurer's negligence.

As a result, this condition essentially demonstrates that the shift in the possibility of an
accident as a function of the injurer's level of care is zero.

Of course, the question is whether and in what circumstances the court will consider the Act
of God protection and, as a result, interpret that the adjustment in the risk of an accident with
respect to the injurer's standard of care is zero. A topic like this refers to the problem of what
is known as liability scope.

Accordingly, when an injurer's standard of care is a necessary cause of harm, he is liable; his
level of care is a necessary cause if a different level of care would have culminated in a
different level of harm. If there are cases under which the injurer is not accountable spite of
the existence of any harms, the scope of liability is considered restricted. In comparison, if
the injurer is still liable whenever damage happens, regardless of the circumstances
surrounding the harm, the scope of liability is unlimited.

The injurer is not responsible for damage that was not caused by his act within an optimal
scope of responsibility, which is where the injurer's care did not affect the risk of harm.
However, it is probable that the scope of responsibility is inefficiently broad, resulting in the
injurer being held responsible despite the fact that his standard of treatment has little effect
on the likelihood of damage. The injurer, on the other hand, is unlikely to be held
responsible, even though his actions altered the anticipated harm.

6
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACT OF GOD AND FORCE MAJEURE

Force Majeure has traced back its origin to the “Napoleonic Code”, where as in common
law system the concept has evolved from one of “physical impossibility” to “frustration of
purpose” (U.K.) to “commercial impracticability”.

“Act of God” (Vis Major) is a legal principle that many defendants use to avoid being found
guilty of the charges they are facing. The phrase is one of the safeguards in the Inevitable
Accident defense. Force Majeure is the other defense available in the clause of unavoidable
incidents. Both terms have the same meaning in English, but they have different legal
definition. On the other hand, while the concept of act of God encompasses all causes of an
unavoidable accident caused by elementary forces of nature unconnected with any entity of
man or any other cause directly or indirectly, the definition of Force Majeure is a much
broader term that encompasses more than just natural forces. However, other factors which
exist that are unrelated to nature and are linked to human agency directly or indirectly, but
over which the humans involved in the accident had no influence, or an event that was
unavoidable and cannot be managed.

“Force majeure clauses excuse a party from performance if some unforeseen event beyond its
control prevents performance of its contractual obligations.”

Acts of God (Vis Major) and Force Majeure defenses are not absolute and have evolved
significantly over time. Various provisions have been applied to contracts over time,
changing the attributes of these two terms as well as their legal significance. Whereas the Act
of God has remained largely unchanged with slight improvements mostly in the vocabulary
and interpretation, the Clause of Force Majeure has expanded its scope and now includes the
Act of God in its entirety, implying that the two clauses are no longer distinct.

As a result, we can now infer that the defense clauses have modified and evolved
dramatically over time and are no longer as they were defined in their sources.

7
ESSENTIALS

Natural forces, such as unusual rainfall, winds, and tempests, must operate without human
interference.

The event must be exceptional and not something that could be fairly expected and defended
against.

"Act of God" is often an arduous defense. This requires that human agency be excluded and
that an act of God is unforeseeable. To be an event of a legal act of God, natural events must,
without human co-operation or any mixture of human means, have been "the sole and
immediate cause of injury."

In general, a case of damage or harm by a natural force may therefore apply to a major
defense but only in circumstances when that force is strong enough to overcome and annul
any potential cause that a human agency contributes to. The question is whether the
magnitude of force is sufficiently foreseeable to prevent personal injury or the damage to
property resulting from an accused. For example, in Wisconsin a windfall of 55 mile an hour,
albeit rarely, is reasonably foreseeable. However, the tornadic wind is probably less than two
thousand meters per hour and the vis major defence would apply, even if a human company
(for example a product such as a window or door) were involved, to damage personal injury,
or property caused by such force.

ACT OF GOD AND INEVITABLE ACCIDENT DISTINGUISHED

All Acts of God are inevitable, but not the opposite.

An Act of God is discrete and distinct from inevitable accident. In order that an accident may be
an act of God it must have followed directly from natural causes without human intervention. In
Nugent v. Smith, Cockburn, C.J. said "All causes of inevitable accident, casus fortuitous meaning
an uncontrollable accident, may be divided into two classes:

Those which are occurred by elementary forces of nature not connected with the agency of man
or other cause [Act of God]

Those which arises either wholly or in part by agency of man. [Inevitable Accident]

Example- When a ship is thrown by a violent storm to shore, this is the act of God; but when
it is fired by mistake, but unavoidable by the captain, it is man's action.

If by lightning a building is set on fire, this is an act of God; but not if man does it by falling
by light although it was not negligent.

8
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT

ACT OF GOD

1.Could not be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill

A direct violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human
care and skill have been resisted is Act of God.

May be controlled by human beings.

2. Not managed by people.

3. The tortious liability due to inevitable accidents may be imposed strictly

3. In case of torts arising from acts of Gods, even strict liability may not be imposed

4. In determining the tortuous liability of the defendant, courts have discretionary power

4. No power of discretion

Conclusion: defense of inevitable accidents is more general and distinctive from God's act in
that it is dependent on human activity rather than natural forces in the extent to which it is
unforeseeable.

ACT OF GOD & NEGLIGENCE

In law and particularly tort law negligence is the violation of an obligation (duty) to act with
care or, in similar circumstances, the failure to act as a reasonable and prudent person. Both
these defenses are based on reasonable prediction (act of God and negligence). As far as
predictability is concerned, there is not a question of whether a similar event has occurred
previously but whether the risk of this specific malaise is predictable. There is therefore no
need for flooding, an earthquake, a hurricane or other natural force to have caused neglect. If
the design, construction, operation, inspection or maintenance are reasonable, liability may
still exist.

9
CASE STUDIES

Nichols v. Marsland
In this case, by damming a natural stream, the defendant had built certain artificial lakes on
his land more highly than that of the defendant's land. An extraordinary precipitation "greater
and more violent than any other witness" caused the river and lakes to swell to the point that
the fresh banks burst and the flowing water sprung up on the land, taking four bridges away.
Nichols, the plaintiff applied for damages on the plea that in Rylands v. Fletcher the
defendant was liable to rule.
HELD: The contention was rejected and the defendant was held not liable. The Court of
Exchequer Chamber held that she ought not to be liable for an extraordinary act of nature
which she could not reasonably foresee. It was said that one is only bound to provide against
the ordinary operations of nature, but not against her miracles.

Mahindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chaturbhuj

The defendant's roof was fallen and injured by a cinema advertising board. A plaintiff was
injured. The complainant sued the defendant and argued that the board had fallen due to
unusual serious storm. However, a storm of this magnitude was observed during the season
of Monsoon. The defendant did not guarantee or anticipate that the attachment of banners to
this level is strong enough in monsoon to face the storm pressure. The Higher Court of
Calcutta held that such a storm could be said to be so inattentive that it could not be
reasonably anticipated by a human foresight, nor can it be considered 'major' or 'act of God.'

Hence, the suit was allowed and the defendant was found negligent. Before the act of God
can be admitted the defendant could have taken reasonable care and done all that what he was
bound to do

State of Mysore v. Ramachandra

In that case the State had built a reservoir to supply the villagers of Nipani with drinking
water. But the building was not completed and the overflow channel connected to the storage
tank was partly built. Land and crops have been damaged by rain-related water flow. The
complainant lodged a damages lawsuit.

HELD: The State resisted the suit that it was the act of God. But, the court rejected the
defence and observed - "Assuming an act of God such as flood wholly unprecedented, the
damage in such a case results not from the act of man in that he failed to provide a channel
sufficient to meet the contingency of the act of God. But for the act of man there would have
been no damage from the act of God."

10
Greenock Corpn. V. Caledonian Railway Co.

It was true that the company built a children's swimming pool in a stream bed in the park and
changed its course and hindered its natural flow. Due to the exceptionally intense rainfall, the
stream flowed over the pool and large amounts of water flowed down a roadway and flooded
a company's property.
HELD: This did not become damnum fatale and the Corp. was responsible. The case of
Nichols was distinguished by the fact that it was then the storage of water in a reservoir
without interfering with the nature of the flow, and that anyone who interferes with it must
combat even an extraordinary precipitation.

MATHEMATICAL EQUATION FOR THE ACT OF GOD

The act of God or vis major can also be explained mathematically as follows:

 Unprecedented + Unforeseen + Irresistible = Act of God

(Nichols v. Marsland; Mahindranath v. Mathura Dass)

 Unprecedented + Foreseen + Irresistible + Act of God

(Nichols v. Marsland case)
 Precedented + Unforeseen + Irresistible = Act of God

(Greenock Corporation case)

(iv) Precedented + Foreseen + Irresistible = Act of God
(Greenock Corporation and Mahindranath cases)

11
CONCLUSION

The meaning of an Act of God in law, then, is not so much a phenomenon that is often
attributed to a positive action of the forces of nature, but a natural mechanism that is not due
to the act of Man, and it is this negative side that needs to be highlighted.

The criteria is whether human foresight and prudence could sufficiently recognize the
probability of such an occurrence, not whether the event could be reasonably expected. Even
in its most restricted form, this defense, like the act of a stranger defense, moves the tort's
basis from blame for the risk's existence to culpable failure to monitor the risk.

The scientific reality of increasing Event Foreseeability and its impact on Response
Foreseeability and the special issues created by climate change provide significant factual
and legal fodder for litigants seeking to change judicial mindsets. Since tort law must evolve
from the ground up (i.e., through individual cases that eventually lead to appellate courts
articulating a fundamentally different approach to extreme climate events), plaintiffs must be
prepared to (a) argue to the judge for a legal rejection of the defense, and (b) make those
arguments by articulating the fundamental problems with the defense and a set of workable
replacement principles and (c) work to produce jury instructions that mitigate the jury's
potential for being confused by the Act of God Defense. Such a case-by-case approach would
take time and coordination to advance an agenda that will minimize and eventually replace
the Act of God defense.

As it is ultimately a means for a defendant to escape responsibility, the Act of God Defense
persists and continues to be valid. The defense's presence allows and promotes defendants to
lift it because it appears to short-circuit the negligence process by implying that there are a
set of "special laws" that eventually absolve them of liability. Defendants will continue to
raise the defense as long as they feel there is anything to benefit by doing so—even though,
in view of predicted climate change impacts, it offers nothing more than a fool's paradise.

12
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 https://jurisdictioomnis.in/publications/f/actus-dei-nemini-facit-injuriam
 https://www.blackgown.in/actus-legis-nemini-facit-injuriam/
 https://theindianlaw.in/legal-maxims/
 https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/history-about-the-act-of-god-
philosophy-essay.php
 www.christianchatnews.info/christianity/christianity-inevitable-accident-and-act-of-
god-as-defenses-in-tort-law/
 http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?
Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=101645

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 26th edition 2010, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur

 Avtar Singh, P.S.A Pillai's Law of Tort, 9th edition, Eastern Book Co.

13