Skip to main content

actus dei nemini facit injuriam

 Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam



The Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam states that "God 's action does not result in legal action against anyone". In other words, no one is responsible for anything beyond human ability. This includes any damage caused by unnatural forces, which will not be covered by law. It means that the law cannot place anyone who is guilty of an act of God which is ‘force majeure’. Likewise, no one can complain of any act of God because such an act is inevitable. Even any legal action or claim for compensation against the act of God will not be considered by the Court.


The act of God is used as a defense tool in cases of torts where the situation is beyond the control of the defendant and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such a case, the defendant will not be liable for criminal law for such unintentional damages. Two key factors are required in the use of such defenses. First, there must be natural energy efficiency. Second, the occurrence should be unusual and without thought. And in the end, it has to be beyond human ability.


Looking at Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197) plaintiff had a contract with the defendant to transport the goods. But the property was looted by a mob that was beyond the control of the defendant. It was thought that "every incident beyond the control of the accused could not be called the Law of God" and that "the destructive actions of an unruly mob could not be considered an act of God". It was also resolved in this case that actions that could be traced back to the forces of nature and that could not be linked to the intervention of human organization could be useful to God.


Similarly, in Nicholas v. Marsland (1876) 2 EXD 1, defendant had several pools to be made in his country. Unprecedented rainfall caused the shores of the lakes to burst and the water to flow over the plaintiff's bridges. It was assumed that the plaintiff's bridges were broken by God's action and that the defendant was innocent.


Conclusion 

Actus dei nemini facit injuriam is a legal maxim which means that the natural forces action can not result in any legal damage to any person , a person can not be held liable for something which is force majeure , in law of torts it acts as an exception and as a protection against the damages . The act of God is used as a defense tool in cases of torts where the situation is beyond the control of the defendant and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such a case, the defendant will not be liable for criminal law for such unintentional damages. Two key factors are required in the use of such defenses. First, there must be natural energy efficiency. Second, the occurrence should be unusual and without thought. And in the end, it has to be beyond human ability.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more