ACT OF GOD
Act of God serves as a good defence under the law of torts. It is also recognized as a valid
defence in the rule of ‘Strict Liability’ in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher 1868.
The defence of Act of God and Inevitable accident might look the same but they are different.
Act of God is a kind of inevitable accident in which the natural forces play their role and
causes damage. For example, heavy rainfall, storms, tides, etc.
Essentials required for this defence are:
Natural forces’ working should be there.
There must be an extraordinary occurrence and not the one which could be
anticipated and guarded against reasonably.
Working of natural forces
In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar AIR1971 Kerala 197, the unruly mob robbed all the
goods transported in the defendant’s lorry. It cannot be considered to be an Act of God and
the defendant, as a common carrier, will be compensated for all the loss suffered by him.
In Nichols v. Marsland 1876, the defendant created an artificial lake on his land by collecting
water from natural streams. Once there was an extraordinary rainfall, heaviest in human
memory. The embankments of the lake got destroyed and washed away all the four bridges
belonging to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendants were not liable as the same was
due to the Act of God.
Occurrence must be extraordinary
Some extraordinary occurrence of natural forces is required to plead the defence under the
law of torts.
In Kallu Lal v. Hemchand 1958, the wall of a building collapsed due to normal rainfall of
about 2.66 inches. The incident resulted in the death of the respondent’s children. The court
held that the defence of Act of God cannot be pleaded by the appellants in this case as that
much rainfall was normal and something extraordinary is required to plead this defence. The
appellant was held liable.
PRIVATE DEFENCE
The law has given permission to protect one’s life and property and for that, it has allowed
the use of reasonable force to protect himself and his property.
The use of force is justified only for the purpose of self-defence.
There should be an imminent threat to a person’s life or property.
For example, A would not be justified in using force against B just because he believes that
some day he will be attacked by B.
The force used must be reasonable and to repel an imminent danger.
For example, if A tried to commit a robbery in the house of B and B just draw his sword and
chopped his head, then this act of A would not be justified and the defence of private defence
cannot be pleaded.
For the protection of property also, the law has only allowed taking such measures
which are necessary to prevent the danger.
For example, fixing of broken glass pieces on a wall, keeping a fierce dog, etc. is all justified
in the eyes of law.
In Bird v. Holbrook 1823, the defendant fixed up spring guns in his garden without
displaying any notice regarding the same and the plaintiff who was a trespasser suffered
injuries due to its automatic discharge. The court held that this act of the defendant is not
justified and the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him.
Similarly, in Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan 1984, a landowner i.e. the defendant had laid a
network of live wires on his land. The plaintiff in order to reach his own land tried to cross
his land at 10 p.m. He received a shock and sustained some serious injuries due to the live
wire and there was no notice regarding it. The defendant was held liable in this case and the
use of live wires is not justified in the case.
In Collins v. Renison 1 Sayer 138, the plaintiff went up a ladder for nailing a board on a wall
in the defendant’s garden. The defendant threw him off the ladder and when sued he said that
he just gently pushed him off the ladder and nothing else. It was held that the force used was
not justifiable as the defence.
