A COMPARITIVE STUDY ON INEVITABLE ACCIDENT AND ACT OF

GOD.

ABSTRACT:
Defence in common consensus of law refers only to the protection or resistance of
oneself or another person from an act which may have been committed by another
person and is contrary to the law. In the case of torts, the term ‘defence’ is only used to
refer to arguments put forward by the defendant which, if accepted by the court, would
enable the defendant to evade liability, even if all the elements are present in the case at
issue. The term ‘General Defences’ is used in the context of torts to avoid confusion with
the term ‘Defence’. When a plaintiff takes legal action against a defendant for a wrong
done by the defendant, the defendant will be liable for that wrong if there are all the
elements necessary for that wrong to be committed. However, there are certain defences
that the accused can use to absolve themselves of the liability arising from the wrong
committed. There are appropriate defences for the apparent offender that can be used,
such as Volenti non fit injuria, defence of ‘Consent’, the plaintiff is the wrongdoer,
inevitable accident, Act of God, private defence, mistake, necessity, statutory authority,
etc.

Amongst the various general defences available, this paper concentrates on making an
analysis between two of the general defences, which are inevitable accident and act of
God. Though inevitable accident and Act of God may seem to be similar, yet they differ
from each other in specific aspects. And this paper concentrates on making a
comparative study on these two general defences with relevant illustrations and cases to
provide a better understanding.

Keywords: general defences, inevitable accident, Act of God.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Tort law is the legal system that provides compensation to people who have been injured
or harmed as a result of the wrongful conduct of others. However, there are situations in
which a defendant can avoid liability by using a general defence. There are several
general defences that a defendant can use to avoid liability in a tort action. All types of
tort actions are covered by general defences.

What are general defences in tort law? Defences in tort law refer to the legal principles
that a defendant can rely on to avoid being held liable for a tortuous act. These general
defences are designed to protect the defendant's rights and interests. The plaintiff must
prove their claim. If the defendant is able to mount a defence, he or she will not be held
responsible for the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff.

General defences in tort law are designed to strike a balance between the rights of the
claimant and the rights of the defendant. These defences ensure that the claimant’s
rights are not violated and that the defendant is not held responsible for actions that
were out of the plaintiff’s control. Defences also serve as a framework for assessing
whether the defendant acted justifiably in the circumstances.

There are a number of general defences available in tort law. However, the scope and
effectiveness of those defences will vary from case to case. In order to avoid liability, a
defendant must prove that their actions are covered by one of the general defences.

2
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT

MEANING OF INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:

The doctrine of “inevitable accident” is a general defense in tort law that absolves
liability. It has its origins in the English common law system of the early 17th century.
An accident is regarded as “inevitable” if it cannot be avoided by common sense,
prudence, or skill. In the words of Sir Frederick Pollock an unavoidable accident is an
accident that cannot be avoided by such measures as a reasonable person, acting in such
an act, would reasonably expect to take.

The defense of “inevitable accident” is a defense that can be used when harm is caused
in the course of a legitimate act, done with the utmost care, for any unavoidable reason,
and the damage does not result in a cause of action. This defense is one of the most
common defences that a defendant can use under tort law, and is based on the principle
that the defendant will not be held liable if the plaintiff is harmed even if the defendants
did not have malicious intent.

ESSENTIALS OF INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:

Pollock argues that an “inevitable accident” doesn’t have to be an “absolutely inevitable

accident”, but rather an accident that could not have been avoided by the reasonable
precautions of a reasonable person in a reasonable situation. In other words, an
accident doesn’t necessarily have to be absolutely inevitable, but only as a result of
ordinary prudence. Under the law, what constitutes a reasonable person’s “reasonable
precautions” is contingent upon the actions of that so-called reasonable person. If the
defendant can show that he didn’t intend to harm the plaintiff and he couldn’t have
avoided the injury by reasonable precautions, then he can be excused from paying the
damages. This is the defense of inevitable accidents.

In order to argue the defence of inevitable accident, you must meet two conditions: ·
Unintentional Damage Unlike the criminal law, intention does not play a significant role
in the award of compensation for civil wrongs under the torts law. When it comes to
seeking relief under the inevitable accident defence, there must not be any intention on

3
the part of the defendant to harm the plaintiff. Injury/injury could not have been
avoided despite reasonable care This defence requires that, in the circumstances at
issue, the injury or injury could not have been prevented, even if the reasonable care
and precautions of a rational and prudent person would have been taken. Road
Accidents You may have encountered road accidents in your daily life as a result of
some unforeseeable event. In such cases, the defence of inevitable accident often arises.

For instance, if a car accident occurs not because of the driver’s fault but because of a
breakdown in the car’s mechanical system that results in the car losing its balance and
colliding with a pedestrian. Furthermore, the car is being serviced on a regular basis.
Now the driver/owner can justify his/her liability by claiming that the accident was
unavoidable, accidental, and unavoidable, even with proper care.

LIMITATIONS OF INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:

The following torts or tort law principles preclude the defense “inevitable accident,”
which places significant limitations on their applicability: Trespassing In trespass cases,
the argument “inevitable accident” is inadmissible because the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff, not the defendant. Strict Liability When there is absolute liability in a
situation, the ‘inevitable accident’ defense has no place because strict responsibility is
not affected by factors such as negligence, intent, knowledge of the conduct, etc.
Culpability In a situation where there is serious harm to others that cannot be avoided,
even with reasonable precautions, culpability is based solely on the possibility of harm
to others. negligence Like trespass, in negligence cases the argument ‘inevitable accident
“is inadmissible’ because the plaintiff is not required to prove the defendant’s
negligence.

LANDMARK CASES

1) Stanley v Powell
2) Assam State Coop., etc. Federation Ltd v Smt Anubha sinha
3) Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. state road Transport Cooperation
4) Holmes v. Mather
5) Brown v. Kendall

4
 6) Padmavati v. Dugganaika

ACT OF GOD

MEANING OF ACT OF GOD

The term “vis major” comes from the Latin word “vis major”, meaning “force” or
“greater”. In law, “vis” means “inevitable accident”. This term is used in civil law in
much the same way that “act of God” is used in the common law. In general, no one is
held liable for an accident that results from a vis major. An act of God is a natural
disaster that no one can prevent, such as an earthquake, tidal wave, volcanic eruption,
or tornado. Act of God is significant because of the destruction and damage they cause,
and because many contracts state that “acts of God” are an excuse for delaying or
failing to full fill a commitment or causing damage to a party, for which another party
may be held liable.

In Rylands v. Fletcher, Blackburn J. held that the Act of God can be invoked when an
act is caused directly by natural causes, without human intervention, in circumstances
which cannot be predicted or understood by human prudence. In the Rylands case, the
facts of the case are that B, the mill owner, hired independent competent contractors to
build a reservoir to supply water for his mill. During the work, the contractors
encountered old shafts and passageways on B’s land. The shafts were filled with earth,
but the contractors did not block them. The water from the reservoir burst through the
old shafts and flooded A, B’s neighbour’s mines. Blackburn J. ruled that the defendant
can justify the escape by showing that it was the result of the plaintiff’s “default” or “vis
major”.

ESSENTIALS OF ACT OF GOD

LIMITATIONS TO ACT OF GOD

ILLUSTRATIONS

5
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INEVITABLE ACCIDENT AND ACT OF GOD:

Inevitable accidents can be caused by natural forces or by acts of man or both, whereas
acts of God occur without the intervention of man and are caused by natural forces
only. For example, traffic accident, train accident, building collapse, etc. For example,
storm, earth-quake, volcanic eruption, etc.

An inevitable accident can be prevented or controlled with increased care and caution.
However, an act of God cannot be prevented or controlled.

In the case of inevitable accidents, the courts have a discretionary power to determine
the defendant's tortious liability. However, in the case of Act of God, the courts have no
discretionary power and must give their judgment to justify the tortious liability of the
defendant.

6
 REFERENCES

1) https://www.academia.edu/4846951/Act_of_God_as_a_defense_in_Law
2) https://blog.ipleaders.in/act-of-god-and-inevitable-accident/
3) https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/ailet-pg/inevitable-accident-general-defences-
in-tort/
4) http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Torts/Chapter5.htm
5) https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=inevitable%20accident
6) http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Torts/Content.htm

7
8
9