Lightning, the “Act of God,” and the Evolution of Legal Liability

Guest Opinion

Lightning has been regarded as a powerful, sacred force by humans since the beginning of time and has often been attributed to a deity (e.g., Zeus and Minerva). When someone is struck by lightning, rightly or wrongly, it is often viewed as a divine act of judgment. It is therefore not surprising that, when courts began assigning liability for damages caused by lightning, they generally concluded that no liability could be imposed because such events were considered “Acts of God.” That theory eventually became an established legal principle in tort law.

How Lightning Works

Lightning begins with static electricity in storm clouds, where water droplets and ice particles rub against one another, creating positive and negative electrical charges. The positive charges rise while the negative charges move toward the ground. When the electrical difference becomes great enough, the energy is released in a massive discharge that reaches the earth as lightning, accompanied by thunder.

Because light travels about one million times faster than sound, you can estimate how far away a lightning strike occurred by counting the seconds between seeing the lightning and hearing the thunder. Roughly every four seconds equals one mile.

What Is the Risk of Being Struck by Lightning?

The risk of being struck by lightning is commonly described as about one in a million. However, where you live or spend time can significantly affect that probability.

Worldwide, approximately 240,000 people are struck by lightning each year, and about 90% survive. Many survivors, however, suffer long-term neurological, cardiac, or other injuries.

States with the highest numbers of lightning strike victims, based on long-term National Weather Service data, include:

• Florida
• Texas
• Colorado
• North Carolina
• Georgia
• Tennessee
• Alabama
• Pennsylvania
• Ohio
• New York

Florida, by far, experiences the most lightning strikes and is often called the “Lightning Capital of the United States.” This is likely due to its nearly daily thunderstorms, high humidity, and the prevalence of outdoor activities.

Then there is the myth that lightning never strikes the same place twice. The saying apparently stems from the belief that someone would not suffer the same misfortune twice. Scientifically, however, it is simply untrue. Lightning seeks the shortest path to the ground and frequently strikes tall, isolated structures. For example, the Empire State Building is struck about 25 times each year, while the Eiffel Tower is struck about 10 times annually.

So far this year, there have been five lightning-related deaths in the United States: two in Florida and one each in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Utah. This is significantly below the typical 10 to 20 deaths recorded by this point in the year. Overall, annual lightning fatalities have declined from 30 to 50 deaths per year to approximately 10 to 20, largely because advances in weather forecasting and communication technology allow people to receive warnings before dangerous conditions develop.

The “Act of God” Limitation on Liability and Assumption of Risk

In 1939, the landmark case Central Georgia Electric Membership Corp. v. Heath held that although the lightning strike itself was an Act of God, the utility company could still be held liable because the lightning traveled through a defective electrical system that failed to safely ground the electrical surge. The court explained:

“When the lightning struck the main line of the defendant it was an act of God; but permitting it to travel across the lateral wire into the room occupied by the plaintiff, instead of arranging so that it would be conducted into the ground, was not an act free from human agency.”

Until the 1970s, courts generally treated lightning as an Act of God for which there could be no liability. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the mid-1990s, however, courts increasingly recognized that liability could arise when a defendant knowingly exposed others to foreseeable lightning risks.

A pivotal case came in 1995 with Maussner v. Atlantic City Country Club. In that case, a golfer was struck by lightning. The golf club argued that the incident was an unavoidable Act of God. The court disagreed, holding that when lightning is foreseeable, a golf course has a duty to exercise reasonable care by monitoring weather conditions, suspending play, and providing appropriate shelter for golfers.

This shift reflected dramatic advances in meteorological science and technology. As weather forecasting became more accurate and Doppler radar became widely available, courts increasingly concluded that organizations could no longer claim ignorance of approaching storms. The National Weather Service began adopting radar technology in the mid-20th century, and the later development of NEXRAD Doppler radar systems greatly improved the ability to detect storm movement and predict lightning-producing weather. With those technological advances came a corresponding legal duty to monitor weather conditions and warn people of foreseeable dangers.

As a result, after 1995, not only golf courses but also governments, schools, outdoor event organizers, athletic programs, and recreational facilities increasingly assumed legal responsibilities to protect participants by monitoring storms and taking reasonable precautions to reduce lightning exposure. These developments also weakened the traditional assumption-of-risk defense because participants now reasonably expect organizers to provide warnings and make informed decisions based on modern weather-monitoring capabilities.

Lightning strikes, along with other weather-related disasters such as floods, freezes, and extreme heat events, have become sufficiently predictable that courts increasingly recognize a duty to warn. Current litigation involving Camp Mystic and local government officials illustrates this evolving legal landscape. Although defendants have asserted the “Act of God” defense, the plaintiffs allege that National Weather Service evacuation warnings were available but ignored for several hours before the tragedy occurred.

To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to:  https://profvictoria.substack.com/ 

Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.

Related