Vis Major under Law of Torts

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:42 PM IST

Vis major which means Act of God is one of the general defences given under the Law of Torts. The Latin word Vis Major, or Act of God, which falls under the general defences, literally translates to "superior force" or "inescapable force of nature that cannot be avoided," and it may severely limit liability for injury inflicted in certain situations. A legally-speaker's term for an unavoidable mishap that releases a party from all liability due to its unpreventability is Vis Major. Consequently, no one may be held responsible for any damages resulting from an unavoidable accident.

This Story also Contains

Act of God or Vis major
General Defences under the Law of Torts
Types of General Defences under the Law of Torts
Vis Major means in torts
Case laws on Vis Major under law of tort
Conclusion

Act of God or Vis major

The 'act of God' defence is based on the tort law premise that culpability must be established on a fault and that a person cannot be penalised if the fault is that of a 'vis major' in which all measures were taken, but a casualty happened.
It is described as: "A loss that results immediately from a natural cause without the intervention of man, and could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and care."
According to Salmond, "an act of God" comprises those acts that a man cannot avoid by exercising reasonable precautions. Such mishaps are caused by natural processes and are incompatible with human activity.
Thus, it is an act that "is due to natural causes directly and exclusively without human intervention, and that it could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, pains, and care reasonably to have been expected from him (the defendant)." Lord Mansfield defines an act of God as "something opposed to the act of man."

General Defences under the Law of Torts

When a plaintiff files a lawsuit against a defendant, alleging a particular tort or violation of a legal right that results in legal damages, and the plaintiff is successful in proving the components of the complaint, the defendant is liable.

There are, nevertheless, a few instances in which the defendant may raise defences that will shield him from responsibility. Under the General defences as given under the law of torts, in general defences there are certain conditions under which a person will not be liable for their actions.

Types of General Defences under the Law of Torts

Private Defence

In tort situations, the most common general defence is private defence. When the defendant, while in urgent danger, uses reasonable force to defend his body, property, or the property of another, and has no time to report the occurrence to the right authorities, it is deemed a private defence. The damage caused should be appropriate for the circumstances.

Statutory Authority

Legislative authority is another general defence. Any damages resulting from an act that is approved by statutory legislation or a law passed by the legislature cannot be held against the defendant in Statutory Authority as Defence to Torts.

Volenti non-fit Injuria

Translation: "No harm is done to a willing person." This is the Latin expression "Volenti non fit injuria" which indicates that a person who consents to harm does not have the right to get compensation for such harm. The plaintiff has a solid defence if he voluntarily accepts the harm since he cannot later claim that the harm was his fault. Nobody stands up for a privilege they have voluntarily given up or given up on. It is possible to give your explicit or tacit permission to be harmed.

When the Plaintiff is Wrongdoer

The dictum Ex turpi causa non orithur actio which states that no action can result from an immoral cause has an impact on this kind of general defence. This wide defence states that the Plaintiff himself is a wrongdoer and is barred from suing the defendant even if he is at fault (having performed an illegal act) and has suffered losses.

In the case of Collins v. Rension

In one case, the plaintiff scaled a ladder to post a notice on the garden wall of the defendant. He said that he gently pushed the plaintiff off the ladder when they refused to come down. Nonetheless, the court decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Inevitable Accident

An "inevitable accident" defence may be used in cases where someone is harmed while acting appropriately and with all reasonable care for an unavoidable reason. Therefore, there is no basis for a cause of action arising from the injury. It is one of the frequent defences available to the defendants under tort law, and it is predicated on the idea that they will not be held liable if the plaintiff is harmed notwithstanding their lack of malicious intent.

Essentials of Inevitable Accidents

The following are the essential elements to constitute an inevitable Accident

There must be an accident
Even after exercising adequate care and attention, such accidents must be unintentional and unexpected.
As a result, there had to be no carelessness on the side of the person and suffering, harm, damage, or loss suffered by another person as a result.

Vis Major means in torts

Act of god defences can be used when an action causes harm and damage to a party without the intervention of a third party and when the action is inevitable and cannot be predicted or avoided by a third party. It is important to note that in these situations, the damage and chaos caused are significant, and in cases of contract breach, they can be used to shield a party from liability for actions or inactions promised in a contract.

A loss that happens instantly as a result of a natural cause without human interference and that could not have been avoided by exercising caution, diligence, and care is known as a vis major.

Essentials of Vis major under law of tort or Act of God

Natural Causes

If a natural disaster or tragedy is an uncommon, noteworthy, and unexpected manifestation of the forces of nature that arises from an inevitable necessity, then it is deemed an act of God. A heavenly act cannot be stopped by human caution or meticulous forethought.

Human care can be used to predict and prevent the impacts of common causes. For example, a layperson can predict when rain will seep through a damaged roof. The injured party may be entitled to compensation for negligence stemming from the failure to take the required safety precautions if the accident had predictable causes. Consequently, an act of God would not be stopped by reasonable care because it is so uncommon and unrelated to human activity. Therefore, in these circumstances, the individual who feels wronged is not entitled to damages.

Occurrence of an Act, not Reasonabelly Forseeable

The essential and main element of an act of god is the happening of an unexpected event. For this reason, if the harm or loss was caused by an accident that was predictable and preventable, the injured party is entitled to compensation. However, a natural calamity that is unpredictable and uncontrollable cannot be prevented by human prudence or foresight, hence it cannot be made up for.

Furthermore, courts believe that an act of God's defence is only applicable in extremely rare circumstances where the extensive history of climate variability in the area could not have predicted or predicted the event. It is created solely from human recollection, or documented history. Courts may require expert testimony to establish the unexpected nature of an incident.

Incapable of Being Prevented by Any Reasonable Measures and Acts which lack Human Intent

It suggests that saying no would be difficult. Carelessness is defined as failing to take the required safety measures. The "act of God" defence will not hold up if it cannot be proven that the human factor used reasonable care and precautions to prevent the injury, even in cases when it was not possible to prevent it. If negligence is asserted and proven, the "act of God" defence will be rendered ineffective. If a tree fell on a bystander and the owner was careless, they cannot use the "act of God" defence to escape responsibility.

Case laws on Vis Major under law of tort

Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar

In this case, the defendant and the plaintiff established an agreement for the delivery of specific goods. The defendant cannot be held accountable because it did not influence the mob's theft of the goods. The court decided that an incident that happened outside of the defendant's control could not be considered a divine act. The court held that the destructive acts of a disorderly mob cannot be justified as an act of God.

Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.

The defendants' constructed water pipes were relatively strong enough to withstand extreme cold. An exceptionally hard frost that year destroyed the pipes and caused significant damage to the plaintiff's possessions. Although frost is a natural occurrence, it was decided that the defendants were not liable since an unexpectedly severe frost could be attributed to an act of God.

Conclusion

Act of God or Vis Major is one of the general defences given under the law of torts. According to Act of God any act that takes place due to the natural forces without any human intervention or intention. The law of Torts provides different types of general defences under which a person will not be held liable for any act done. The Different General defences as given under the law of Torts are Private Defence, Statutory Authority, Volenti non-fit Injuria, and acts of God.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the law on Acts of God?

A catastrophic, unexpected natural disaster for which no human is accountable is referred to be an act of God.

2. What is the meaning of the Act of God?

An event that is beyond human control, particularly when it results in harm or destruction to property, is considered an act of God.

3. What is the principle of an Act of God?

A divine act cannot be stopped by prudent human planning and caution.

4. What is an example of an Act of God?

Examples of Acts of God are cyclones, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

5. What are general defences under the Law of Torts?

General defences there are certain conditions under which a person will not be liable for their actions.

6. What is the burden of proof for a vis major defense?

The burden of proof lies with the defendant claiming vis major. They must demonstrate that the event was truly an act of God, unforeseeable, and that no reasonable precautions could have prevented the damage.

7. How do courts determine if an event qualifies as vis major?

Courts consider factors such as the nature of the event, its predictability, the defendant's preparedness, local conditions, and industry standards. They assess whether the event was truly extraordinary and unpreventable.

8. Can climate change impact the application of vis major in tort cases?

Yes, climate change can affect vis major defenses. As extreme weather events become more frequent and predictable, courts may be less likely to accept them as unforeseeable acts of God, potentially limiting the use of vis major as a defense.

9. Can a defendant be held partially liable if vis major contributed to the damage?

Yes, in some cases, courts may find that both vis major and the defendant's actions contributed to the damage. This can result in partial liability, where the defendant is responsible for the portion of damage attributable to their actions or negligence.

10. Can technological advancements affect the application of vis major?

Yes, as technology improves our ability to predict and mitigate natural disasters, events that were once considered unforeseeable may no longer qualify as vis major. This can potentially narrow the scope of the defense in tort cases.

11. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases of strict liability?

Yes, vis major can potentially be used as a defense even in strict liability cases. However, the standard of proof may be higher, as strict liability typically holds defendants responsible regardless of fault.

12. How does vis major interact with the concept of duty of care in negligence cases?

Vis major can affect the assessment of whether a defendant breached their duty of care. If the damage was truly caused by an unforeseeable act of God, it may be argued that no reasonable duty of care could have prevented the harm.

13. How does vis major relate to the concept of intervening causes in tort law?

Vis major can be considered a type of intervening cause – a superseding event that breaks the causal chain between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm. However, it specifically refers to natural events rather than human interventions.

14. Can vis major be used as a defense in product liability cases?

While less common, vis major can potentially be used in product liability cases if an unforeseeable natural event caused or contributed to a product defect or malfunction. However, manufacturers are generally expected to design products to withstand reasonably foreseeable conditions.

15. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases of environmental torts?

In environmental tort cases, vis major can be a complex defense. While natural disasters may cause environmental damage, courts may scrutinize whether human activities (like improper waste storage) exacerbated the effects of the natural event.

16. What is the relationship between vis major and the doctrine of inevitable accident?

While both are defenses in tort law, vis major specifically relates to natural events, whereas inevitable accident can include a broader range of unforeseeable circumstances, including those involving human factors.

17. Can a defendant always use vis major as a defense in tort cases?

No, vis major is not an absolute defense. The defendant must prove that the event was truly unforeseeable and that reasonable precautions could not have prevented the damage. Courts will consider the specific circumstances of each case.

18. How does vis major interact with the concept of negligence in tort law?

Vis major can negate claims of negligence by demonstrating that the damage was caused by an unforeseeable natural event rather than the defendant's lack of care. However, if negligence contributed to the damage alongside the natural event, liability may still apply.

19. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases of property damage?

In property damage cases, vis major can be used as a defense if the damage was caused solely by an extraordinary natural event. However, property owners may still be liable if they failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable natural risks.

20. How does vis major affect liability in cases of personal injury?

In personal injury cases, vis major can potentially absolve a defendant of liability if the injury was caused solely by an unforeseeable natural event. However, the defendant must prove they took all reasonable precautions to prevent harm.

21. What is vis major in tort law?

Vis major, also known as "act of God," refers to extraordinary natural events that are unforeseeable and unpreventable by human intervention. In tort law, it serves as a defense that can absolve a defendant of liability if the damage was caused by such an event rather than negligence.

22. What are some examples of events that qualify as vis major?

Examples of vis major events include earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and other severe natural disasters that are beyond human control and prediction.

23. How does vis major differ from force majeure?

While both concepts relate to unforeseeable events, vis major specifically refers to natural occurrences, whereas force majeure is a broader term that can include human-made events like war or strikes. In tort law, vis major is more commonly used as a defense.

24. Can human actions ever be considered vis major?

Generally, no. Vis major specifically refers to natural events. Human actions, even if unexpected or severe, fall under different legal categories and defenses.

25. How does the concept of foreseeability relate to vis major?

Foreseeability is crucial in determining whether an event qualifies as vis major. If the event could have been reasonably anticipated or its effects mitigated, it may not be considered vis major, even if it's a natural occurrence.

26. How does vis major apply in cases involving multiple defendants?

In cases with multiple defendants, vis major can complicate the allocation of liability. If some damages were caused by an act of God while others resulted from negligence, courts must carefully assess each defendant's role and the impact of the natural event.

27. How does vis major relate to the concept of "best practices" in various industries?

Industry best practices often include preparations for potential natural events. If a defendant failed to follow these best practices, it may weaken their vis major defense, as the court may determine that the event was foreseeable and its effects preventable.

28. How does vis major apply in cases involving acts of terrorism or war?

Strictly speaking, vis major applies to natural events, not human-made disasters like terrorism or war. These would typically fall under the broader category of force majeure in contract law, or may be subject to specific legal doctrines related to acts of war or terrorism.

29. Can vis major be applied in cases involving long-term environmental changes?

Applying vis major to long-term environmental changes can be complex. While gradual changes like sea-level rise might be foreseeable, sudden tipping points or cascading effects could potentially be considered vis major events, depending on their predictability.

30. Can vis major be applied to slow-onset natural disasters?

Applying vis major to slow-onset disasters like droughts or rising sea levels can be challenging. Courts may consider the gradual nature of these events as making them more foreseeable, potentially limiting the effectiveness of a vis major defense.

31. Can advancements in weather forecasting technology affect the application of vis major?

Yes, as weather forecasting technology improves, events that were once considered unforeseeable may become more predictable. This could potentially narrow the scope of natural events that qualify as vis major, affecting its application as a defense in tort cases.

32. How does vis major relate to the concept of "Act of God" in insurance policies?

Vis major and "Act of God" are often used interchangeably in legal contexts. However, in insurance policies, "Act of God" may have a more specific definition outlined in the policy terms, which may not exactly align with the legal concept of vis major.

33. How does vis major relate to the concept of proximate cause in tort law?

Vis major can break the chain of causation between a defendant's actions and the resulting harm, potentially negating proximate cause. If the natural event is deemed the true cause of the damage, it may supersede any negligence on the part of the defendant.

34. Can a business use vis major as a defense for breach of contract in tort cases?

While vis major is primarily a defense in tort law, it can also be relevant in contract-related tort cases. If an extraordinary natural event prevents a business from fulfilling its contractual obligations, it may use vis major as a defense against tort claims arising from the breach.

35. Can vis major be applied differently across various jurisdictions?

Yes, the application of vis major can vary between jurisdictions. Some legal systems may interpret the concept more broadly or narrowly, and local precedents can affect how courts apply the principle in specific cases.

36. Can a defendant's prior knowledge of potential natural risks affect a vis major defense?

Yes, if a defendant had prior knowledge of potential natural risks and failed to take reasonable precautions, it may weaken their vis major defense. Courts may find that the event was foreseeable and preventable given the defendant's knowledge.

37. How does the principle of vis major interact with statutory duties in tort law?

When a defendant has statutory duties, vis major may still be a valid defense if the breach of duty was truly caused by an unforeseeable natural event. However, courts may interpret statutory duties strictly, potentially limiting the effectiveness of a vis major defense.

38. Can climate data and scientific predictions affect the application of vis major?

Yes, as climate science advances, courts may consider scientific predictions and historical climate data when assessing whether an event qualifies as vis major. This could potentially narrow the scope of events considered truly unforeseeable.

39. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases of nuisance?

Yes, vis major can potentially be used as a defense in nuisance cases if the alleged nuisance was caused by an extraordinary natural event rather than the defendant's actions. However, ongoing nuisances may be harder to attribute solely to vis major.

40. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases involving public utilities or infrastructure?

Public utilities and infrastructure providers may use vis major as a defense if service disruptions or damages were caused by extraordinary natural events. However, they are often held to high standards of preparedness, potentially limiting the effectiveness of this defense.

41. Can vis major be applied differently for different types of natural events?

Yes, courts may apply vis major differently depending on the type of natural event. For example, a sudden earthquake might be more likely to qualify as vis major compared to a slowly developing drought, which might be considered more foreseeable.

42. How does vis major interact with the concept of assumption of risk in tort law?

While vis major and assumption of risk are distinct defenses, they can interact in cases where a plaintiff voluntarily exposed themselves to known natural risks. Courts must balance the extraordinary nature of the event against the plaintiff's awareness of potential dangers.

43. Can technological failures during natural events affect a vis major defense?

If technological systems designed to mitigate natural disasters fail during an event, it may complicate a vis major defense. Courts will consider whether the failure was due to the extraordinary nature of the event or if it resulted from negligence in system maintenance or design.

44. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases of professional negligence?

While possible, using vis major as a defense in professional negligence cases can be challenging. Professionals are generally expected to have a high level of expertise and foresight in their field, potentially limiting the events that could be considered truly unforeseeable.

45. How does the concept of vis major relate to the duty to warn in tort law?

Vis major can interact with the duty to warn if an extraordinary natural event occurs. However, if the potential for such an event was foreseeable, failing to warn about the risk may still constitute negligence, even if the specific event itself was an act of God.

46. How does vis major interact with the concept of vicarious liability?

In cases of vicarious liability, where an employer is held responsible for an employee's actions, vis major could potentially provide a defense if the damage was truly caused by an unforeseeable natural event rather than the employee's negligence.

47. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases involving autonomous or AI systems?

As AI and autonomous systems become more prevalent, the application of vis major may evolve. Courts may need to consider whether AI systems should have been able to predict or respond to natural events, potentially changing how vis major is applied in these cases.

48. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases of rescue attempts gone wrong?

In cases where rescue attempts during natural disasters lead to further harm, vis major might be used as a defense. Courts would consider whether the rescuer's actions were reasonable given the extraordinary circumstances of the natural event.

49. Can vis major be applied differently for different types of plaintiffs?

While the basic principle of vis major applies equally, courts may consider the nature of the plaintiff when assessing foreseeability and preventability. For example, a business might be expected to have more robust disaster preparedness than an individual homeowner.

50. How does vis major interact with the concept of comparative negligence?

In jurisdictions that apply comparative negligence, vis major can complicate the allocation of fault. Courts must determine what portion of the damage was caused by the unforeseeable natural event versus any negligence on the part of the involved parties.

51. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases involving failure to evacuate?

In cases where damage resulted from a failure to evacuate during a natural disaster, vis major might be used as a defense. However, its effectiveness would depend on factors like the predictability of the event and the adequacy of evacuation warnings and procedures.

52. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases involving multiple, consecutive natural events?

When multiple natural events occur in succession, applying vis major becomes more complex. Courts must consider whether the cumulative effect of these events was truly unforeseeable, or if after the first event, subsequent damages became more predictable.

53. How does vis major interact with the concept of mitigation of damages in tort law?

While vis major may provide a defense for the initial damage caused by a natural event, defendants may still have a duty to mitigate further damages once the event has occurred. Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent additional harm could result in liability.

54. Can vis major be used as a defense in cases involving the spread of diseases?

The application of vis major to disease outbreaks is complex and evolving. While some outbreaks might be considered unforeseeable acts of nature, courts may also consider factors like public health preparedness and response in determining liability.

55. How does the principle of vis major apply in cases involving critical infrastructure failure?

In cases of critical infrastructure failure during natural disasters, vis major might be used as a defense. However, courts would likely scrutinize whether the infrastructure was adequately designed and maintained to withstand foreseeable natural events.