Question

Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. 

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 neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his actions. 

Factual Situation: Ram, while rushing to board a moving train, pushed Shyam, who was walking along with a heavy package, containing firecrackers. As a result, the package slipped from his hand, and crackers exploded injuring a boy standing close by. A suit was filed against Ram, by the boy,  claiming damages. DECISION: 

विकल्प

• Ram is not liable, because he did not know anything about the contents of the package.

• Ram is not liable, because Shyam should not have  earned such a package in a crowded place like a railway  station  
  

• Ram is liable because Ram is under an obligation not  to push Shyam

• None of the above

Answer 1

Ram is not liable, because he did not know anything about the contents of the package.

Explanation:

In the given case although Ram is under a legal obligation to take care to avoid act or omission which he can FORSEE would injure his neighbor but presently he did not push Shyam on purpose, further, he could not FORSEE that Shyam is carrying crackers which might explode. Thus Ram is not liable.
"Ram is not liable, because Shyam should not have earned such a package in a crowded place like railway station" is incorrect as there is no prohibition on carrying such a package in a crowded place. So, this argument can't be taken in favor of Ram. 
"Ram is liable because Ram is under an obligation not to push Shyam" is incorrect as Ram UNINTENTIONALLY  pushed Shyam, further he was IGNORANT about the fact that Shyam is carrying crackers that might explode. "None of the above" is not applicable.