| Admiralty and maritime law |
|---|
 |
| History |
| Features |
| Contract of carriage /charterparty |
| Parties |
| Judiciaries |
| International organizations |
| International conventions |
|
| International Codes |
In legal usage in theEnglish-speaking world, anact of God,act of nature, ordamnum fatale ("loss arising from inevitable accident") is an event caused by no direct human action (e.g.severe orextreme weather and othernatural disasters) for which individual persons are not responsible and cannot be heldlegally liable for loss of life, injury, orproperty damage.[2][3][4][5] An act of God may amount to an exception to liability in contracts (as under theHague–Visby Rules),[6] or it may be an "insured peril" in aninsurance policy.[7] InScots law, the equivalent term isdamnum fatale,[8] while mostCommon law proper legal systems use the termact of God.[9]
It is legally distinct from—though often related to—a common clause found incontract law known asforce majeure.[10]
In the law ofcontracts, an act of God may be interpreted as an implied defense under the rule ofimpossibility orimpracticability. If so, the promise is discharged because of unforeseen occurrences, which were unavoidable and would result in insurmountable delay, expense, or othermaterial breach.[11]
Under theEnglish common law, contractual obligations were deemedsacrosanct, so failure to honor a contract could lead to an order forspecific performance or internment in adebtor's prison. In 1863, this harsh rule was softened by the case ofTaylor v Caldwell which introduced the doctrine offrustration of contract, which provided that "where a contract becomes impossible to perform and neither party is at fault, both parties may be excused their obligations". In this case, a music hall was burned down by act of God before a contract of hire could be fulfilled, and the court deemed the contract frustrated.[12]
In other contracts, such asindemnification, an act of God may be no excuse, and in fact may be the central risk assumed by the promisor—e.g.,flood insurance orcrop insurance—the only variables being the timing and extent of the damage. In many cases, failure by way of ignoring obvious risks due to "natural phenomena" will not be sufficient to excuse performance of the obligation, even if the events are relatively rare: e.g., theyear 2000 problem in computers. Under theUniform Commercial Code, 2-615, failure to deliver goods sold may be excused by an "act of God" if the absence of such act was a "basic assumption" of the contract, and the act has made the delivery "commercially impracticable".[13]
Recently, human activities have been claimed to be the root causes of some events previously considered natural disasters. In particular:
As a general principle of act of God,[16] epidemic can be classified as an act of God if the epidemic was unforeseeable and renders the promise discharged if the promisor cannot avoid the effect of the epidemic by exercise of reasonable prudence, diligence and care, or by the use of those means which the situation renders reasonable to employ.[17]
An act of God is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon. Explained byLord Hobhouse inTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council as describing an event:
InTennant v Earl of Glasgow (1864 2 M (HL) 22)Lord ChancellorWestbury described a case as: "what is denominated in the law of Scotlanddamnum fatale — occurrences and circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility; and which, when they do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may result from them."[18]
In the law oftorts, anact of God may be asserted as a type of intervening cause, the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if the carrier did not usereasonable care to protect against sparks—regardless of their origins. Similarly,strict liability could defeat a defense for anact of God where the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood. Other cases find that a common carrier is not liable for the unforeseeable forces of nature. SeeMemphis & Charlestown RR Co. v. Reeves, 77 U.S. 176 (1870).
One example is that of "rainmaker"Charles Hatfield, who was hired in 1915 by the city ofSan Diego to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000.[19] The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, nearly bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking outtelephone andtelegraph lines, and causing an estimated $3.5 million in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment.[20]