Question

PRINCIPLE: A person is liable for all direct consequences of his act, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his act.

FACTS: Charu while driving her car at a high speed, knocked down Seema, a middle-aged woman who was walking on the road. Seema got her leg fractured as a result of this accident. As Seema was suffering from diabetes, her leg had to be amputated. Seema filed a suit against Charu for damages for the loss of her leg.

• A. Charu is liable as the loss of leg is directly attributable to her act
• B. Charu is not liable because she did not know Seema was suffering from diabetes
• C. Charu is liable because she could have reasonable foreseen the loss of leg of Seema
• D. Charu is not liable since a diabetes patient like Seema ought not to have walked on the road

Answer 1

The correct option is B Charu is not liable because she did not know Seema was suffering from diabetes

Right now, Charu isn't at risk for the loss of Seema's leg since it is absurd sensibly to predict the degree of harm. She could have predicted as sensible man, that by driving at high speed she could meet with an accident yet it is unrealistic for a sensible man to anticipate that to whom I will hit while driving would be experiencing diabetes which in result extend the measure of harm.

Hence, B is the correct option.