Veeran v. Krishnamurthy AIR 1966 Ker 172
Road Negligence & Duty of Care — easy, classroom-style English.
Quick Summary
Veeran v. Krishnamurthy applies the neighbor principle to road accidents. A lorry followed a bus on a straight road while many boys waited to cross. When the bus passed, the boys ran across. A 6-year-old was hit and badly injured. The Court held: the driver should have anticipated this danger and braked in time. The child was too young for contributory negligence. The owner was vicariously liable.
Issues
- Could the driver reasonably foresee danger to a child in those conditions?
- With due care, could he have slowed or stopped the lorry in time?
Rules
A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they can reasonably foresee are likely to injure their “neighbors” — people closely and directly affected by their actions.
Facts (Timeline)
29 April 1956, ~11:30 AM
About 20–25 boys gathered roadside to cross; a bus approached south→north.
Lorry Behind Bus
Defendant’s lorry followed 75–100 yards behind at ~25–30 mph on a straight stretch.
Children Cross
As the bus passed, the boys ran across; some crossed safely before the accident.
Injury & Treatment
A 6-year-old was struck; treated 56 days; medical costs claimed (Rs. 1,681 total).
Suit Filed
Father sued for negligence against driver (D2) and owner (D1).
Arguments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- A careful driver would foresee children darting out after a bus.
- With the visible gap and straight road, braking was possible.
- Child of 6 cannot be blamed like an adult; no contributory negligence.
Respondent (Defence)
- Event was sudden; driver had no time to react.
- Children’s rush was unexpected; accident unavoidable.
- Alternatively, child contributed to the accident.
Judgment
The Kerala High Court found for the plaintiff. Given the straight road and the sizable gap behind the bus, a reasonably careful driver could and should have slowed and stopped. The 6-year-old was not contributorily negligent. The lorry owner was vicariously liable.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a driver can foresee children crossing after a bus passes, the duty of reasonable care requires speed control and timely braking. Failure to do so is negligence. Very young children are not treated as negligent actors.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies foreseeability around buses, schools, and groups of children.
- Reinforces that child plaintiffs are judged by a child standard, not adult norms.
- Confirms vicarious liability of owners for drivers on duty.
Key Takeaways
- Slow and brake when children are visible near the road.
- Straight road + clear gap = duty to anticipate and react.
- Child under 7 usually not contributorily negligent.
- Owner can be vicariously liable for driver’s negligence.
- Neighbor principle guides road-duty analysis.
- Useful precedent for road accident claims.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “ BUS → BOYS → BRAKE”
- Bus ahead on a straight road.
- Boys gathered to cross — risk is obvious.
- Brake early and control speed — avoid harm.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether the driver, seeing likely crossing by children, owed and breached a duty to slow/stop to avoid injury.
Rule
Reasonable care towards foreseeable neighbors; adjust speed and brake when danger is likely.
Application
Straight road + 75–100 yards gap gave time to react; failure to brake shows negligence.
Conclusion
Driver liable; no contributory negligence for a 6-year-old; owner vicariously liable.
Glossary
- Foreseeability
- Ability to predict harm to those likely affected by your actions.
- Contributory Negligence
- When a claimant’s own lack of care contributes to harm; children are judged by a child standard.
- Vicarious Liability
- When an employer/owner is liable for wrongs of an employee acting in the course of employment.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now