send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
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.
The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, relationship proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a football club died in a stamped in the Nehru stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the police of the police in permitting too many supporters to crowdinone part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the commissioner of the 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 attempt 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?
Police is liable for all of the consequence of their negligence because they could reasonable 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 other will be breached if they were present at the event and the harm caused was being 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 for the only for the death of 95 fans and not for the psychiatric harm to relatives of deceased fans which happened due to their own delicate mental condition.
By: Parvesh Mehta ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses