Question

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.

Principles:

1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

Facts:

A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.

पर्याय

• (a) (iv)

• (a) (iii)

• (b) (ii)

• (c) (i)

Answer 1

(b) (ii)

Explanation:

Such injury is not foreseeable by the organizers. This  problem is based on the maxim volenti non fit injuria,  and also see the case of Hall v. Brooklands Auto  Racing Club (1932)