Introduction

An “Act of God” refers to an extraordinary, natural event that is beyond human control and cannot be anticipated or prevented, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, or other severe weather events. Legally, it is used as a defense in cases where harm or damage occurs due to such events, and the responsible party cannot be held liable because the event was unforeseeable and unavoidable. The defense typically applies when the event occurs unexpectedly and exceeds what could be reasonably anticipated, making it impossible for the defendant to prevent or mitigate the consequences.

For the defense to succeed, the event must meet certain criteria, including being an exceptional natural occurrence, and in some cases, it may require that human actions (such as construction or alterations) did not contribute to or exacerbate the situation. Courts often evaluate whether the event was truly extraordinary and whether the defendant could have taken measures to avoid or reduce the harm.

NICOLAS V. MARSLAND – Extraordinary acts of nature

The defendant constructed some ornamental pools. The region experienced unusually heavy rainfall of a magnitude never experienced before. The pools fled causing damage to the claimant’s property. The court held that the defendant should not be liable for the extraordinary acts of nature (act of god) that could not be anticipated.

GREENOCK CORPORATION V. CALEDONIAN RY. – Criticised and revisited Nicolas

The defendants constructed a pool in the bed of a stream changing the natural course of a stream. Heavy rains led to overflowing of the stream at the pool which damaged the claimants’ property. It was alleged that the stream would not have overflown had the pond not been constructed obstructing and changing the course of the stream.

Held that rain cannot be regarded as an Act of God. It was the duty of the defendants to make the claimants secure against any injury which they would not have been prone to had nature not been interfered with. If the course of nature was tampered, it is difficult to prove Act of God.

SLATER V. WORTHINGTON CASH STORES – Proximity of claimant

Claimant, who was driving along a road, skidded on the ice and was severely injured. She alleged that the injury was due to D’s failure to remove the ice which had accumulated on the roof of D’s shop.

The defence of Act of God was not upheld as the action was reasonably foreseeable and was easily preventable by clearing the snow. It was the shopkeeper’s duty

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Act of God” defense is a legal concept that allows individuals to avoid liability for harm caused by extraordinary natural events. However, its applicability is not always clear-cut. As seen in Nicolas v. Marsland, where the court accepted the defense for an unprecedented rainfall, it may be upheld when the event is truly unforeseeable and beyond human control. In contrast, cases like Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Ry. and Slater v. Worthington Cash Stores illustrate that the defense may not apply when human actions have altered natural processes or when the event, though severe, is foreseeable and preventable through reasonable measures. Ultimately, whether the defense is successful depends on the specifics of the case, including the nature of the event and the actions (or inactions) of the parties involved.

---

Mental Incapacity in Contracts – Section 12 of ICA, 1872 – Read!