Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour, the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to absorption. Lekha filed a suit against Krish claiming damages.

DECIDE.

• A. Krish will be liable to pay damages because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Krish.
• B. Krish will not be liable to pay damages because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
• C. Krish will be liable to pay damages to Lekha because he failed to drive carefully.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The correct option is B Krish will not be liable to pay damages because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.

Deducing from the above principle damages can be claimed only in cases of breach of legal obligation to take care which results in a legal injury (which can be foreseen).

In the above situation the damage caused to Lekha could not be foreseen by a man of ordinary prudence (in this case krish) and therefore no damages can be claimed by Lekha.