Act of God as a limitation to Strict Liability

Strict Liability, one of the two kinds of No-fault liability, was originated as a concept in the

Rylands v. Fletcher case – an 1868 House of Lords decision. This doctrine holds that a person

is held liable if he collects, owns or purchases anything that is likely to cause harm to human

health or land upon its escape and damage occurs as a natural consequence of this escape. A

key consideration of this doctrine being applied is that the thing that has been bought or

occurred on the land must be dangerous. A dangerous thing is one which poses a harm and is

high risk to neighboring property. Another requirement for this doctrine to apply is that the

dangerous thing that’s causing the harm must escape to a space outside the defendant’s

control and occupation. The usage of the land on which the dangerous thing occurs must be

non-natural. By this, as established by the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the land must be used for

something that isn’t its regular or intentioned use – it must be exceptional. In the Rylands v.

Fletcher case, (use see also) the enormous amount of water being collected within a reservoir

was considered to be an unnatural use of land. A further requirement that was added down

the road was that the damage caused should have been foreseeable by the defendant in order

to claim damages. The uniqueness of strict liability lies in the fact that there is no need for the

defendant being negligent or having any intention to harm – he faces the consequence even in

the absence of fault, hence cementing its nature as a No-Fault liability. Strict Liability is a

breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. The rule established by Justice Blackburn

in Rylands v. Fletcher explicitly laid down the groundwork for establishing strict liability as a

tort. He conceded that “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on

his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it

in at his peril; and if he does not to do is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is

the natural consequence of its escape.” The issue with applying blanket strict liability to all

kinds of cases of this nature is that in some circumstances, the cause for this escape might be
completely unforeseeable and out of the defendant’s control. This is where the established

limitations to this doctrine of strict liability come into play.

Throughout the years, as more cases establish precedent, five exceptions have arisen.

Namely, they are – Plaintiff’s own fault, Act of God, Consent of the Plaintiff, Act of a Third

Party and Statutory Authority. Although all of them have their own scope and extent to which

they can be applied, this paper will focus on Act of God as a limitation to the strict liability

doctrine. The paper will begin by expanding on the meaning and scope of the Act of God

exception of the doctrine. It will then evaluate its scope by analysing cases where this

limitation has been applied to answer two essential questions – to what extent can Act of God

act as an exempt from the doctrine of strict liability and what are the requirements for this

limitation to be applied. This paper will then look at the application and extent of this

limitation during modern times in India.

Act of God or vis major was first precisely explained in Tennet v. Earl of Glasgow as

"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudenc

e is not bound to recognize the possibility." It is essentially the defence which is used in cases

of natural disasters like floods, epidemics, typhoons, landslides and other disasters that

cannot be foreseen by any man. In this case, the escape of the dangerous thing is usually the

consequence of such a natural calamity and the principle of no-fault liability is not applied. It

is a direct act of nature without any kind of human intervention. It can be further understood

in its application as an act that could not have been avoided by any kind of human care,

diligence or any sort of human ingenuity. Although Act of God has been considered to be a

potential limitation to strict liability ever since the conception of the doctrine, with the

passage of time and changes in the well-being of society, there is a definite change that has

and will occur in the scope of this limitation. Nichols v. Marsland was one of the foremost
cases in establishing the scope of the Act of God limitation and the successful application of

it.

In the Nichols v. Marsland case, the defendant redirected a natural stream on his land to

create ornamental lakes. These ornamental lakes had existed for many years before the

incident on 18th June, 1872 and had never been the cause of any damage. There were multiple

safeguards put in to prevent the lake from flooding. These safeguards were meant to drain

away the water naturally. However, an excessive, freak rainfall overpowered these safeguards

– causing damage to the plaintiff’s land as a result of the excessive water flooding out on it.

As a result of this damage, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. This case was

considered to be an extremely straightforward one and served as precedent for multiple future

cases of the Act of God defence. Justice Mellish conveyed the defining judgement concluding

that:

Now the jury have distinctly found, not only that there was no negligence in the construction

or the maintenance of the reservoirs, but that the flood was so great that it could not

reasonably have been anticipated, although, if it had been anticipated, the effect might have

been prevented; and this seems to us in substance a finding that the escape of the water was

owing to the act of God. However great the flood had been, if it had not been greater than

floods that had happened before and might be expected to occur again, the defendant might

not have made out that she was free from fault; but we think she ought not to be held liable

because she did not prevent the effect of an extraordinary act of nature, which she could not

anticipate.

If we take a closer look into this case, we can see that it fulfills most of the criteria to be

accepted as a strict liability case except one of the most essential criteria – foreseeability.

According to the facts of the case, rain and floods like that one had never occurred prior to

this incident, making it impossible for the defendant to anticipate this kind of overflowing.
Adding to that, there was some level of forethought by the defendant to prevent incidents like

these from occurring in the form of multiple safeguards built around the lake. If the defendant

is unable to foresee the incident, he cannot be considered strictly liable. As this lack of

sudden foreseeability was due to a natural calamity, Act of God was accepted as an

appropriate defence.

In the case of S.K. Shangring Lamkang v. State of Manipur however, although the Act of

God defence was used, it wasn’t accepted by the judiciary. According to the plaintiffs, who

were the wives of the two deceased men, their husbands died of electrocution due to

negligence on the part of the defendant and not due to an Act of God. In this case, the two

deceased were riding on a scooter approaching Khongjon village when a high-tension electric

line fell from the pole I was attached onto the deceased. The plaintiffs alleged that the electric

line that fell on the deceased was old, detached from its pole and broken. Further, prior to this

incident, a repair request for the electric line was also made by the chairman of that area.

Despite the request, they made no effort to repair the line. The plaintiffs relayed that, if

necessary, actions had been taken with respect to strengthening the line, their husbands would

not have been killed. However, as a response to their claims the defendants alleged that it

wasn’t negligence on their part but a stroke of lightening that caused the tension disc

insulator to break – resulting in the line collapsing.

The main contention in this case once again became about foreseeability. The judge ruled that

the risk involved in the management and supply of electricity is very great and there should

be a high degree of care involved in such a task. He iterated that the defendants should have

foreseen and anticipated the electric line falling from the pole as a result of any kind of storm

or lightening. The judge believed that this was a reasonable anticipation. Since the handling

of electricity is an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, if there is any harm caused to

anyone due to the mishandling of it – the person handling it would be held strictly liable, not

taking into account any of the limitations laid down in Ryland v. Fletcher.

If we contrast these cases with each other, we notice that the primary factor that comes into

play when it comes to the application of the Act of God limitation is aspect of foreseeability.

If the defendant, to any capacity, should have been able to anticipate the natural calamity –

Act of God cannot be accepted as a limitation. Act of God can only be applied as a defence

when the calamity that occurs cannot be anticipated and is unusual to the regular pattern of

weather of that particular area. As time passes, with the increase in global warming and

erratic weather patterns, there is a higher level of duty of care that is expected in the handling

of dangerous things and hazardous items. It is becoming increasingly difficult to anticipate

and predict weather patterns and if we start using the Act of God defence at every erratic

natural occurrence, no one would be held liable for their actions. With the standards of duty

of care raised, only natural occurrences of grave nature will accept Act of God as a limitation.

Recently, the M.C. Mehta vs Union of India case has provided a great example of the change

of scope in the application of the Act of God limitation in India. Before this case, the doctrine

of strict liability was applied the same way in India as it was in England – the country where

the doctrine was first established. Like other countries, in India also the defendant is held

liable even if the loss caused to the plaintiff is a result of an independent contractor.

However, there are a few differences in the application of specific parts of strict liability in

India due to the cultural contrast between India and England.

In India, the escape and collection of large amounts of water is not always subject to strict

liability and nor is it always considered to be non-natural. This is because, most of the times

this water is accumulated for agricultural purposes and the escape of this water onto the

neighbouring crops and lands is beneficial to the farmers and sometimes purposefully done.

In Kamatham Nagireddi vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, the high court of Andhra

Pradesh produced an interesting judgement where they stated that “In fact, in India, the

question to be asked is ‘how could people live if there was not water in tanks and reservoirs.’

Enormous benefits flowing from dams and irrigation is obvious and without them the land

would be wilderness, the country would be desert.” This rule in India isn’t ironclad. For a

case of this kind to not be subjected to the liability statute, the water escaped must benefit the

public and there should have been reasonable care taken by the defendant.

A case that altered the scope of strict liability in India was the M.C. Mehta vs Union of India

case. The landmark judgement held that liability when it comes to dangerous things has to be

absolute and not only strict. A complete turnaround occurred where the notion of absolute

liability has evolved whereas strict liability has changed. The reason given for this rejection

of the Rylands v Fletcher rule with the replacement of absolute liability was that strict

liability is unsuitable to the modern socioeconomic condition of India. As a result of this

change, the Act of God limitation has been rendered worthless. By changing the rule from

recognising the escape of hazardous thing from strict liability to absolute – it leaves no room

for any limitations like the Act of God. The Supreme court of India has rejected all defences

based on the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher ever since the M.C. Mehta case.

The rule of strict liability is a no-fault doctrine. It holds the defendant liable regardless of

fault- as long as the conditions for this rule are met. However, there are times where the

defendant could exercise the highest level of duty of care but the conditions of the escape are

completely out of his control. This is where limitations come in. Each rule in torts law has its

own set of limitations – it has unlikely for any law to be blanket or applicable at every

instance. Act of God is one such limitation to strict liability. Although the established scope

and requirements for this limitation to come into play are straightforward, its scope is

dynamic and subject to socioeconomic and cultural changes. The way that India does not

recognise it as a defence to no-fault liability anymore, we can ascertain that with further
changes around the world, the application of this rule will alter. As times progress, Act of

God as a limitation will continue to alter itself.

 Works Cited

Agrawal, Nupoor. “The Rule of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability in Indian
Perspective.” International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, vol. 4, no. 3,
2021, pp. 3104–3116.

AIR . M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors. Vol. 1086. Indian Kanoon.

AIR. Kamatham Nagireddi (Died) And ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... Vol.
119. Indian Canon.

AIR. Smt. S.K. Shangring Lamkang And ... vs State Of Manipur And Ors. Vol. 32. Indian
Canon.

Aiyar, Ramantha. “Doctrine of Strict Liability .” Lexis Advance,

https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/a05515e4-e09a-4ac9-90de-04b624cf9fd3/?
context=1523890.

Aiyar, Ramantha. “Strict Liability .” Lexis Advance,

https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/fec3a43b-1512-4f48-984d-301c726bb8ca/?
context=1523890.

Aslam, Mohd Aqib. “Liability (Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious Liability)
under Law of Tort.” Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4532-liability-strict-liability-absolute-
liability-and-vicarious-liability-under-law-of-tort.html.

Beswick, Samuel. “Strict Liability Torts.” Tort Law: Cases and Commentaries, Second ed.,
Canadian Legal Information Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, 2021, pp. 22–22.

Bharti, Ayush. “The Rule of No-Fault Liability.” Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers and
Legal Resources, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1865-the-rule-of-no-
fault-liability.html.

Chopra, Ricky. “The Concept of No-Fault Liability.” Ricky Chopra International Counsels,
10 Aug. 2021, https://rcic.in/awareness/the-concept-of-no-fault-liability/.

Coleman, Jules L. “The Morality of Strict Tort Liability.” Markets, Morals, and the Law,
2002, pp. 166–183., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253609.003.0007.

Dhingra, Anjali. “From Strict Liability to Absolute Liability- No Fault to No

Liability.” IPleaders, 7 June 2019, https://blog.ipleaders.in/no-fault-liability/.

“Nichols v. Marsland.” Nichols v Marsland, https://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Nichols-v-

Marsland.php.
Singh, Lal Ratnakar. “He Position Of The ‘Strict Liability’: The Rule In Rylands V. Fletcher
And The ‘Act Of God’ As A Defence To It In Modern Times In India.” Madras Law
Journal (Civil), vol. 1, 1992. Lexis Advance , https://advance-lexis-
com.opj.remotlog.com/document/?pdmfid=1523890&crid=a1f9c8af-ee96-400f-8a88-
a871a5211703&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-in
%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5TFY-C231-JW09-M258-00000-
00&pdcontentcomponentid=346576&pdteaserkey=sr0&pdicsfeatureid=1523894&pdita
b=allpods&ecomp=pbdJk&earg=sr0&prid=5f497f04-a9f1-4d4e-a52c-afa4a377693a#.
Accessed 1992.

Tarafdar, Arijit. “Origin and Meaning of the Rule of Strict Liability and Its
Exceptions.” North-East Law Journal, 2021.

Thomas, W. Robert. “On Strict Liability Crimes: Preserving a Moral Framework for Criminal
Intent in an Intent-Free Moral World.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012,
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2729580.