Question

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.

Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?

विकल्प

• Police is liable for all of the consequences of their negligence because they could reasonably foresee the injury. The liability towards victims who are not physically present is also there in all circumstances.

• Police is not liable because the duty of care towards Harman and others will be breached if they were present at the event and the harm caused was foreseeable. The liability towards victims who are not physically present is only in certain exceptional circumstances.

• Police is not liable because the incident was an accident and supporters were there by their own free will.

• Police is liable only for the death of 95 fans but not for the psychiatric harm to relatives of deceased fans which happened due to their own delicate mental condition.

Answer 1

Police is not liable because the duty of care towards Harman and others will be breached if they were present at the event and the harm caused was foreseeable. The liability towards victims who are not physically present is only in certain exceptional circumstances.

Explanation:

Police is not liable because the test of liability requires that harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; a relationship of proximity must exist; and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The police is not liable to victims who are not present at the actual accident site. The police could not have foreseen harm to Harman and others who were not present and there is no relation of proximity.