The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid an act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor. The neighbour for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
FACT: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around. Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to absorption. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.
DECIDE.
The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid an act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor. The neighbour for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
FACT: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around. Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to absorption. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.
DECIDE.
The correct option is C Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act
- The neighbour-principle in law of torts was laid down in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson. The decision stated that a person needs to take reasonable care to avoid any actor omission that he reasonably foresees to result in injury to neighbour.
- A neighbour in this case is supposed to be a class of people whom the performer of the act must keep within reasonable contemplation to be directly affected by his negligent acts. The principle does not however allow unrestricted claims and ones in close proximity of being affected are only entitled to file a suit for negligence.
- The neighbour-principle in law of torts was laid down in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson. The decision stated that a person needs to take reasonable care to avoid any actor omission that he reasonably foresees to result in injury to neighbour.
- A neighbour in this case is supposed to be a class of people whom the performer of the act must keep within reasonable contemplation to be directly affected by his negligent acts. The principle does not however allow unrestricted claims and ones in close proximity of being affected are only entitled to file a suit for negligence.
