Act of God as defined by Winfield and Jolowicz:
Where an act is caused (harmful to a party) directly by natural causes without human intervention in “circumstances which no human foresight can provide for and againstand of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility”, the Act of
God as defence can be applied. The Act of God was recognized by Blackburn J. in the case of Ryland V. Flethcher which is discussed below -
Rylands v. Fletcher
The facts of the case were that B, a mill owner, employed independent competent contractors to construct a reservoir to provide water for his mill. In the course of work, the contractors came across some old shafts and passages on B‟s land.
They communicate with the mines of A, a neighbour of B, although noone suspected this for the shafts were appeared to be filled with earth. The contractorsdid not block them up, and when the reservoir was filled, the water from it burstthrough the old shafts and flooded A‟s mines.
Here.
Blackburn J. ruled that “the defendant can excuse …show more content…
Birmingham Water Works Co
In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. the defendants had constructed water pipes which were reasonably strong enough to withstand severe frost. There was an extraordinarily severe frost that year causing the pipes to burst resulting in severe damage to the plaintiff’s property. It was held that though frost is a natural phenomenon, the occurrence of an unforeseen severe frost can be attributed to an act of God, hence relieving the defendants of any liability.
Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar
In the Indian case of Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar the plaintiff had booked goods with the defendant for transportation. The goods were looted by a mob, the prevention of which was beyond control of defendant. It was held that every event beyond control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God. It was held that the destructive acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an Act of
Where an act is caused (harmful to a party) directly by natural causes without human intervention in “circumstances which no human foresight can provide for and againstand of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility”, the Act of
God as defence can be applied. The Act of God was recognized by Blackburn J. in the case of Ryland V. Flethcher which is discussed below -
Rylands v. Fletcher
The facts of the case were that B, a mill owner, employed independent competent contractors to construct a reservoir to provide water for his mill. In the course of work, the contractors came across some old shafts and passages on B‟s land.
They communicate with the mines of A, a neighbour of B, although noone suspected this for the shafts were appeared to be filled with earth. The contractorsdid not block them up, and when the reservoir was filled, the water from it burstthrough the old shafts and flooded A‟s mines.
Here.
Blackburn J. ruled that “the defendant can excuse …show more content…
Birmingham Water Works Co
In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. the defendants had constructed water pipes which were reasonably strong enough to withstand severe frost. There was an extraordinarily severe frost that year causing the pipes to burst resulting in severe damage to the plaintiff’s property. It was held that though frost is a natural phenomenon, the occurrence of an unforeseen severe frost can be attributed to an act of God, hence relieving the defendants of any liability.
Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar
In the Indian case of Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar the plaintiff had booked goods with the defendant for transportation. The goods were looted by a mob, the prevention of which was beyond control of defendant. It was held that every event beyond control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God. It was held that the destructive acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an Act of