Golden v. Amory, 329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 1952)
Golden v. Amory is a foundational torts case on the scope of strict liability and the Act of God defense.
Can upstream dam owners be held liable in negligence, nuisance, or strict liability for downstream flood damage where an unprecedented and extraordinary natural event (an Act of God) was the sole proximate cause of the water's escape?
An Act of God—an extraordinary, unprecedented natural event that could not have been anticipated or guarded against by the exercise of reasonable foresight and prudence—breaks the chain of proximate causation and is a complete defense to tort liability, including Rylands v. Fletcher–style strict liability for the escape of a dangerous thing, so long as the natural event is the sole proximate cause of the harm and the defendant was not negligent in construction, maintenance, or operation.
No. The defendants were not liable. The storm was of unprecedented severity and constituted an Act of God that was the sole proximate cause of the flooding; there was no evidence of negligence or unreasonable operation by the defendants. Judgment for the defendants was affirmed.
Golden v. Amory is a staple in torts for its clear articulation of the Act of God defense and its limits. It teaches that strict liability is not absolute; causation and foreseeability still matter. The case is frequently used to test students' understanding of how extraordinary natural forces function as superseding causes and how plaintiffs might negate the defense by proving foreseeability, negligent design or operation, or that the event was not truly unprecedented. It also provides a template for analyzing dam and reservoir cases, public-utility operations, and modern disaster litigation in an era of evolving climate risk and changing baselines for what counts as "unprecedented."