The landmark case of Nichols v. Marsland[1] talks about the 'Act of God' in the legal sphere and contributed in formation of a new tort also known as the "Act of God". The Act of God is discussed in detail later part. The case reached the Court of Appeal on 1 December 1876, which comprised the bench of Cockburn, C.J., James and Mellish, L.JJ and Baggallay, J.A. A which gave the judgement opposite in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher. This case is primarily cited in the context of liability for damages caused by natural events that are beyond human control.

Natural calamities were seen as acts of fate or divine intervention in ancient Roman law, which is where the notion of Act of God originated. Following its incorporation into English common law, this idea has been embraced by legal systems all around the world.

This decision set a crucial precedent for figuring out who is responsible for damage caused by natural forces. The relevance of this case in forming the law of negligence can be understood by looking at the relevant facts, legal precepts, and court ruling.

This decision set a crucial precedent for figuring out who is responsible for damage caused by natural forces. The relevance of this case in forming the law of negligence can be understood by looking at the relevant facts, legal precepts, and court ruling.

Facts of Case
The defendant Marsland possessed a piece of land on which he has constructed ornamental pools by damming a natural stream of water flowing. The water uses to rose above the property of Marsland and the stream flowed through his land and was allowed to escape from pools successively through weirs into the original course. The pool also contained many other safeguarding measures to prevent flooding, allowing excess water to drain away naturally.

In June 1872 there was unprecedent and extraordinary rainfall, which led to the water in the pool to swell beyond the normal levels. The water pressure rose and breached the artificial banks of the pool, which resulted in sudden release of downstream water. Due to the rush of water which caused the damage on plaintiff's property which was adjoining the defendant's land. In response, the plaintiff sued the defendant as for seeking damages from the defendant for the loss and the harm occurred.

Issues:

• The major issue was whether the defendant could be held responsible for the damage caused to the plaintiff from the escape of water from the ornamental pools due to the rainfall.
• The application of the principle of "Act of God" or "vis major" can be called upon to exclude the defendant from the liability occurred.
• Is there a duty of care established by the defendant's voluntary creation of the beautiful pools, similar to the need to keep naughty animals safe?

Arguments Raised
Plaintiff:
The following arguments were put forth by the Plaintiff as:
Significant amounts of water were voluntarily kept on the defendant's property for ornamental reasons. Due to this intentional effort, a stream that would not have been dangerous before now posed a risk to nearby properties. The plaintiff draws comparisons between the law and incidents involving railroads and unruly animals. These comparisons imply that the defendant ought to bear responsibility for any losses brought on by the risk they willingly assumed. The plaintiff argues that the extraordinary rainfall might have been predicted and its possible effects could have been avoided, contesting the validity of the "act of God" defense.

Defendant
In response, to the plaintiff's arguments were given by defendant:
The defendant argues that when building and maintaining the ornamental ponds, they took reasonable precautions. They did not act carelessly in the lead-up to the breach of the fake banks. The defendant makes a distinction between their circumstances and those in instances where a duty of care was established, like in "Rylands v. Fletcher." They contend that a different legal result is appropriate since they were not subject to the same need to maintain reservoirs. The defendant claims that the rainstorm qualifies as a "Act of God" or "vis major" due to its unusual and unexpected character. If true, this defense would release them from responsibility for the harm that resulted.

Judgement in Nichols v. Marsland
After considering all the facts and the issues raised and the arguments presented by both the parties the following judgement was given that the conclusion that the defendant did not act carelessly when creating or maintaining the ornamental pools was upheld by the court.

In addition, the court in Nichols v. Marsland recognized the "Act of God" or "vis major" defense in light of the unusual and unexpected character of the rainfall. The Court separated this case from earlier decisions such as "Rylands v. Fletcher" because the defendant was not required to maintain reservoirs.

As a result, the court in Nichols v. Marsland decided in favour of the defendant, concluding that the harm the rain produced was in fact a "Act of God" or "vis major," absolving the defendant of responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries.

Judgement Analysis
This case was a landmark case regarding the 'Act of God' and how the defendant was not held liable for the loss of the plaintiff and how the supernatural occurrence could cause a perpetual loss to the parties and still no person could be made liable as it is all-natural occurrence and humans have no control in any way possible and even after precautionary steps there could still be loss of the parties. This case had shown that how due to the extraordinary heavy rainfall the loss to the parties occurred and the judgement given became a landmark case and precedent for the future cases all around the world.

The judgement given by the judges after taking in consideration of all the facts and legal principles arising out of it as it was all due to natural forces which implemented that every time a person cannot be held liable even if such incidents occur. The court had separated this case from the case of Ryland v. Fletcher where Ryland was held liable for the loss of Fletcher as in that case, he had to take reasonable care of his belongings which he failed to do so the principle of Strict liability was applied but it was different in this case where after taking precautionary steps the loss still occurred but it was not because of his mistake as it was a natural happening which occurred.

This had shown how extraordinary circumstances affect the legal sphere as which had made the principle of 'Act of God' more concreted through the time period but with the advent of time and conditions and due to development in judicial systems and other facilities the 'Act of God' had been slowly diminishing throughout the world.

This case had shown that how different types of legal principles are made in the society and how they contribute in the world of torts.

A Critical Analysis: Act of God
The landmark case of Nichols v. Marsland the defence successfully pleaded that the accident was act of god and not the fault of defendant and it overturned the precedent of established landmark case of Ryland v Fletcher as it had the rule of strict liability recognizes that act of god was a valid defence and was considered that due to the act of god it was kind of inevitable accident with major difference that due to the act of god the loss arises out of working of natural forces of exceptionally heavy rainfall, storms, tides, volcanic eruptions etc.

According to Halsbury's Laws of England Act of God is defined as:
"An Act of God, in the legal sense, may be defined as an extraordinary occurrence of event or circumstance which could not have been foreseen and which could not have been guarded against, or, more accurately, as an accident due to a natural cause, directly and exclusively, without human intervention, and which could not have been avoided by any amount of foresight and pains and care reasonably to be expected of the person sought to be made liable for it, or who seeks to excuse himself on the ground of it. The occurrence need not be unique, nor need it be one that happens for the first time; it is enough that it is extraordinary, and such as could not reasonably be anticipated…….and it must not arise from the act of man".

The two important essentials are needed for this defence:

1. There must be working of natural forces.
2. The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded against.

The subjective assessment of whether an event qualifies as an 'Act of God' is dependent upon what constitutes a "reasonable" and "foreseeable" event. In circumstances that are comparable, this could result in different results. The 'Act of God' defense can have severe consequences in certain situations, especially if the accused has profited from actions that raised the possibility of harm.

This case is a prime landmark of the liability of act of God as how the natural forces cause loss to people. As 'Act of God' is used to explain the phenomena which lacks the scientific explanations. Over the period of time this concept had become relevant in the legal space over the period of time but now in current times the courts have been less inclined to find that the circumstances were unforeseeable and could not be prevented from the loss of other party as it is becoming now less relevant and useful for people who had committed some the tort with another person. As one of the reasons is that a person could make other person's loss by his will due to his differences or rivalry with other person and causing some serious loss to the person and then claiming the safety through the 'Act of God' as it had been an unforeseen circumstance.

Case Law: Commissioner of Railways v. Stewart
In 1936 in the case of Commissioner of Railways v. Stewart[2] it stated the flooding that damaged their residences, a number of plaintiffs filed a negligence lawsuit against the Western Australian Commissioner of Railways. The plaintiffs contended that because there were not enough culverts underneath the railway embankment to handle the recent rainfall, water breached the embankment and caused property damage.

The Railway Commissioner said that the day's rainfall constituted an 'Act of God', for which it could not be held accountable, and that the culverts were adequate to handle the quantity of rain that might be fairly expected.

The rainstorm's size and intensity were deemed insufficient by the court to qualify it as an act of God. It found that the culverts should have been able to handle a flood of water and that the Commissioner had violated its obligations by doing the work, ruling in favour of the plaintiffs.

Case Law: Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar
In the case of Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayan Reddiar[3], it was held that due to the criminal activities of unruly mob which robbed the goods in the lorry of the defendant which were being transported were not considered as 'Act of God' and the defendant was held liable for the loss of those goods as a common carrier. It was observed: Accidents may happen by reason of the play of natural forces or by intervention of human agency or by both. It may be that in either of these cases, accidents may be inevitable. But it is only those acts which can be traced to natural forces and which have nothing to do wit the intervention of human agency that could be said to be Acts of God"[4].

Case Law: Kallulal v. Hemchand
In the case of Kallulal v. Hemchand[5], where 2.66 inches of rain fell on a day when a building's wall collapsed. The respondent's two children died as a result of that. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the defendant was unable to invoke the defense of "Act of God" in this case because the majority of the rainfall that falls during the rainy season is considered normal and should have been expected. Thus, the appellant was found accountable.

The Supreme Court of India examined whether the "Act of God" argument applied in cases involving environmental harm in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987). The court ruled that in cases where damage was caused by human activity, such as industrial pollution, the defense could not be invoked.

These case laws had shown that how often parties try to cover up their mistakes through the name of the 'Act of God' and how they try to escape their liability by trying to take the loopholes from the law and making an easy exit after causing some significant lose to others. These types of situations had caused the legal principle to start diminish from the legal world and caused hinderance from identifying the real cases from the fake cases presented before the court which causes burden on the courts and judges.

Arguing that some events were unpredictable gets harder as time goes on and as science gains a deeper comprehension of natural phenomena. As with time it's applicability is being limited as there is advancements being made in technological and scientific fields for understanding the predictions of natural disasters, as well as growing recognition of the need to hold individuals and entities liable.

The Act of God defense may not always produce just outcomes, especially if the defendant has benefited from actions that raised the possibility of harm. Judges may interpret what qualifies as a "Act of God" narrowly or broadly, depending on the specifics of the case. This may result in disparities in the defence's application in various circumstances and legal systems.

Conclusion
A landmark case in tort law, Nichols v. Marsland gave crucial direction for the 'Act of God' defense. The doctrine's continued applicability is called into question by the way our understanding of natural phenomena is changing and how much better we are able to forecast them. It is essential to strike a balance between the desire to shield people from unforeseen harm and the ideas of justice and fairness.

The defense of 'Act of God' is a noteworthy legal doctrine that offers a possible exemption from accountability for damages resulting from exceptional natural occurrences. Nonetheless, there are a lot of restrictions and objections to this defense's use. The requirements for establishing an 'Act of God' defense are probably going to change as technology and our understanding of natural disasters develop.

The 'Act of God' had played a significant role in the legal world from a very long period and had shown the worth that how always person cannot be held liable if the circumstances are not under the control and protects the person from being held liable in a wrong way. But often people try to misuse it for their personal benefit which had to be strictly looked upon by the law-making bodies and the courts so that the people require it in real sense can use the principle for themselves.

End Notes:

1. [1876] 2 Ex.D 1
2. (1936) 56 CLR 520
3. (1971) Kerala 197
4. Ibid., at p. 202
5. 1958 Madh. Pra. 48

Also Read:

• Act of god as a defence under Tort law
• Current Judicial Approach Towards Defense Of Act Of God