(The Act of) God’s Not Dead: Reforming the Act of God Defense in the Face of Anthropogenic Climate Change

Zachary David Fechter
{"title":"(The Act of) God’s Not Dead: Reforming the Act of God Defense in the Face of Anthropogenic Climate Change","authors":"Zachary David Fechter","doi":"10.37419/lr.v11.i3.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Natural phenomena like floods, droughts, and blizzards have a long history of causing damage. But these natural phenomena are now more frequent, intense, and therefore, foreseeable because of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change. Owing in part to the greater foreseeability of natural phenomena like weather, scholars believe the act of God defense—which excepts actors from liability when an unforeseeable and irresistible natural phenomenon is the proximate cause of damage—may be dead. Other scholars go further and argue the act of God defense should be dead, as corporate defendants can use it to evade liability even when their acts causally contribute to climate change. Despite the strength of these scholars’ arguments, those highlighting and even advocating for the demise of the act of God defense overlook the possibility that eliminating the defense will unfairly expose everyday people to liability. This Comment thus addresses scholars’ valid concerns with the act of God defense in light of climate change, examines arguments for why the defense should be excised from the law, and then argues that keeping but modifying the defense is the best way to address criticisms without unjustly harming everyday people.","PeriodicalId":174752,"journal":{"name":"Texas A&M Law Review","volume":"37 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas A&M Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v11.i3.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Natural phenomena like floods, droughts, and blizzards have a long history of causing damage. But these natural phenomena are now more frequent, intense, and therefore, foreseeable because of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change. Owing in part to the greater foreseeability of natural phenomena like weather, scholars believe the act of God defense—which excepts actors from liability when an unforeseeable and irresistible natural phenomenon is the proximate cause of damage—may be dead. Other scholars go further and argue the act of God defense should be dead, as corporate defendants can use it to evade liability even when their acts causally contribute to climate change. Despite the strength of these scholars’ arguments, those highlighting and even advocating for the demise of the act of God defense overlook the possibility that eliminating the defense will unfairly expose everyday people to liability. This Comment thus addresses scholars’ valid concerns with the act of God defense in light of climate change, examines arguments for why the defense should be excised from the law, and then argues that keeping but modifying the defense is the best way to address criticisms without unjustly harming everyday people.
(上帝的行为并未消亡:面对人为气候变化改革 "上帝的行为 "辩护法
洪水、干旱和暴风雪等自然现象造成破坏的历史由来已久。但由于人类活动或人为因素造成的气候变化,这些自然现象现在更加频繁、更加剧烈,因此也更加可预见。部分由于天气等自然现象的可预见性增强,学者们认为天灾抗辩--当不可预见和不可抗拒的自然现象是损害的近因时,行为人免于承担责任--可能已经死亡。其他学者则更进一步,认为天灾抗辩应该消亡,因为公司被告可以利用天灾抗辩逃避责任,即使他们的行为对气候变化有因果关系。尽管这些学者的论点很有说服力,但那些强调甚至鼓吹 "天灾 "抗辩消亡的学者却忽视了这样一种可能性,即取消天灾抗辩将不公平地使普通人承担责任。因此,本评论从气候变化的角度探讨了学者们对 "天灾 "抗辩的合理担忧,研究了为何应将该抗辩从法律中删除的论点,然后论证了保留但修改该抗辩是在不对普通人造成不公正伤害的情况下回应批评的最佳方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信