Title – Act of God

Case - Manindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chatturbhuj AIR 1946 Cal. 175

An act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami,
for which no person can be held responsible. An act of God may amount to an exception to
liability in contracts or it may be an "insured peril" in an insurance policy. An act of God is
an uncontrollable event, such as tornadoes, not caused nor controlled by humans. However,
the insured cannot use the event as an excuse for not taking reasonable care to try to prevent
or protect against damages. Acts of God do not absolve people from a duty to exercise
reasonable care. Policyholders should review their policy for coverages and exclusions about
acts of God.
 
 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 
The defendant is the owner and operator of a motion picture theatre. The part of the building
closest to the street was only one storey. A sky sign, which was more or less permanent in
structure, was located on the roof of this building, overlooking the roadway. It was
constructed of a steel frame with masonry and iron connectors to keep it in place. A sheet of
galvanized iron covered the entire structure of the framework on this structure. To install this
sky sign, the defendant obtained a permit from the Calcutta Municipality. The sky sign
exhibited a variety of banners. The banners were not fixed properly in place since no
appropriate appliance was utilized to put them up. Bolts, grooves, flanges, and screws are not
allowed. The banners were secured to the sky sign using inexpensive coir ropes tied to the
wooden frame that held the fabric pattern. A wooden framed banner collapsed from its
location on the plaintiff's head on July 5th. He received a deep cut from which blood gushed
profusely. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the injuries he sustained as a
result of the fall.

ISSUES RAISED

 If the defendant, the occupant bordering the public thoroughfare, owed some
responsibility to the complainant who was a passer-by?
 Will the term res apply to ipsa loquitur?
 If the climate disturbances of the 5th of July 1943 were a serious storm at all?
 

LAWS INVOLVED
  Professor Winfield, following Pollock, has defined the act of God as “an operation of
natural forces so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could reasonably be
expected to anticipate it.”

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff:
 There was negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants which caused the
fall of the banner.
 In the town of Calcutta in the monsoon season, stormy weather is not unusual and
cannot be said to be unexpected that no human foresight could reasonably be expected
to anticipate it.

Defendant:
 There is nothing more than that night was one of unusual severity, but there is no
proof that nothing similar had been experienced before, nor is there anything to lead
to a conclusion that it was at all improbable that such a storm might at any time occur.
 All the reasonable care was exercised by the defendant's manager who personally
supervised the tying of the banner to the sky-sign frame on 12th June 1943.

CONCLUSION

The court while ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, held that: 

 The chief Observer in the Weather Office of the Meteorological Department said that
the weather on the evening of 5th July did not face heavy rainfall and that the velocity
of the wind too was moderate.
 The weather was very common for a normal monsoon day. The defendant did not take
enough precautions to keep the banner securely in place.
 The banners fell in a wind that was not above 27 miles per hour in velocity.
 They were prima facie liable for negligence.

SEE ALSO

 Greencock Co. V. Caledonian Railway (1917) A.C. 556

 Niochols v. Marshland [1876] 10Ex.255
 Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] LR 3HL 330
 Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61