Actus Dei Nemini Injuriam

 “An act of god causes legal injury to no one”

 No one is responsible when something (wrong) is done by God (nature)
 The law cannot hold anyone responsible for the act of God i.e. ‘force majeure’. Likewise,
no one can complain against any act of God because such an act is inevitable. Even any
legal action or demanding compensation against the act of God will not be entertained by
the Court.
 The act of God is used as a defense tool in cases of torts when the situation is beyond the
power of the defendant and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such a case,
the defendant will not be liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage.

 Three essential elements are required in the application of such a defence.

1. Firstly, there must be the working of natural forces.
2. Secondly, the occurrence must be extraordinary and beyond reasoning.
3. finally, it should be beyond the power of human beings.

 Similarly, in Nicholas v. Marsland (1876) 2 EXD 1, 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.

 In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197) the plaintiff had a
contract with the defendant for transportation of goods. But the goods were looted by a
mob which was beyond the control of the defendant. It was held that “every event
beyond the control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God” and “the destructive
acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an act of God”. It was also settled in this
case that acts that can be traced to natural forces and which have nothing to do with the
intervention of human agency could be an aid to be acts 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 claims 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.