actus dei nemini facit injuriam

here actus means act

dei means god
nemini means kind of no
so the basic meaning is "no one responsible when something (wrong) is done
by god (nature)
e.g., extreme storm , or big rainfall , tsunami etc and because of this someone
got injured then no one will go to jail.
E.g., suppose extreme storm came and metal roof of your house goes in the air
and drop on somebody's house. And his house is broken then he can't sue u. He
can sue u but he can't win that law suit. The judge will say it was act of God or
actus dei nemini facit injuriam.

Essentials of the Latin Legal Maxim are as -

1. When the event is caused by the occurrence of natural calamity, in such

events no person would be held responsible
2. No man can complain against act of God
3. No man can make God defendant
4. Act of God called as inevitable accident
5. No man can demand compensation for act of God.
6. Court will not entertain the case of act of God.

Illustration -
Two parties enter into a contract for the supply of cotton in another country
through the ship. However, the seller to the contract could not deliver the
goods due to a tsunami in that region. Now the question arises whether the
buyer can claim damages from the seller in this case? The answer is ‘No.’ The
reason for the failure on the part of the seller to deliver goods to the buyer
was not because of negligence on part of the seller but because of the tsunami
which is considered as a natural disaster and an Act of God. Therefore, the
defendant (seller) can take the defence of Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam to
evade liability.

Judicial Precedent
Shridhar Tiwari vs U.P. State Road Transport: - A bus of UPBBG was traveling
through a village where a cyclist out of nowhere had suddenly come in front of
the Bus. In order to save that cyclist, the driver applied brakes as a result of
which the Bus skidded on the wet road and its rear portion struck against the
front portion of another bus. Here the defendant was not held liable at it was a
sheer case of an inevitable accident.

Nicholas v. Marsland (1876) , the defendant had several artificial lakes on his
land. Unprecedented rain which had never been witnessed caused the banks of
the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away the bridges belonging to
the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff’s bridges were crashed by the act of
God and the defendant was not liable.

Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197)

the facts. On 8-11-1964 the plaintiff purchased 18 bags of green gram at Kottar
in the Kanyakumari District of the Madras State and booked it with the
defendant for transportation to Quilon in one of his lorries. The defendant was
running a lorry service under the name "B. R. N. Lorry Service." The goods were
received by the defendant for transport to Quilon on 8-11-1964. But the goods
were not delivered at Quilon as agreed upon. The suit was therefore filed for
realisation of the price of the goods and interest thereon. The defence was
that while the goods were being transported to Quilon the lorry was waylaid
by a mob at a place 112 miles to the east of Quilon robbed the goods.

It appears that the procession was being taken out as a part of the food agitation
and when they came across the defendant's lorry the mob attacked it and the
goods were removed. The loss was therefore due to accident beyond the control
of the defendant and it was therefore contended that defendant was not liable.
There is, in fact, no plea that there was negligence on the part of the defendant
and the circumstances also do not disclose any negligence or want of care.

The Court held: A common carrier is not a mere bailee of goods entrusted to
him. He is an insurer of goods. He is answerable for the loss of goods even when
such loss is caused not by either negligence or want of care on his part, act of
God excepted. This arises because responsibility attached to the public nature
of the business carried on by him.

An act of God. In the legal sense of the term, may be defined as an extraordinary
occurrence or circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which
could not have been guarded against; or. more accurately, as an accident due to
natural causes, directly and exclusively without human intervention, and which
could not have been avoided by any amount of foresight. The occurrence need
not be unique, nor need it be one that happens for the first time; it is enough
that it is extraordinary, and such as could not reasonably be anticipated.
Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by intervention
of human agency or by both. It may be that in either of these cases accidents
may be inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces
and which have nothing to do with the intervention of human agency that could
be said to be acts of God.

NEMO TENETUR SEIPSUM ACCUSARE

Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare is a legal maxim in Latin. It states that no one
is bound to incriminate or accuse himself.

No one can be compelled to criminate himself, that is, to accuse or confess

himself guilty of any crime; but if he does so voluntarily, the confession is
admissible; and this is illustrated by the common case of a magistrate being
required to caution a prisoner, before taking from him any admission or
confession of guilt he may feel desirous of making, that such confession or
admission will be used in evidence against him. So, the answer of a prisoner,
after his arrest, to a question asked by a police-constable, is inadmissible as
evidence against him; for, the officer in such case has no authority to ask any
question tending to criminate the prisoner.

It has been for ages a principle of jurisprudence in this country, that no man
shall be compelled to answer upon oath to a matter by which he may accuse
himself of any crime; and, strictly speaking, the rule holds good at the present
day. And experience has shown that if this rule did not exist, many persons
would be found willing, for reward or favour, to accuse themselves of crimes of
which they had never been guilty.
There are 2 branches of Law – Civil & Criminal. A man may be compelled to
make answer in a Civil Suit and his admissions made in such answers may be
given in evidence against him. Also, the evidence given by a witness on a trial
in a civil suit. By various statutes, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question
relevant to the issue, on the ground only that the answer may subject him to a
civil suit.

In India, under Article 20 of the Constitution, the defendant has the right
against self-incrimination. Article 20(3) reads that No person accused of any
offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.