Question:

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 neighbor 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 abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

Show Hint

A person is liable only for the harm that is foreseeable—not for indirect or unforeseeable consequences.
Updated On: Aug 7, 2025
  • : Krishna will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lakshmi
  • : Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act
  • : Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully
  • : None of the above
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The legal principle hinges on foreseeability of harm. While Krishna owed a duty of care to road users, including the cyclist, he could not have reasonably foreseen that Lakshmi would suffer a miscarriage due to nervous shock from witnessing the accident. This is considered too remote and not within the foreseeable scope of duty. Hence, no liability arises toward Lakshmi. \fbox{Final Answer: (B): Krishna will not be liable}
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions