Whether john was liable to pay compensation to Vinaya?

Whether john was liable to compensate the car owner

Regarding-
Negligent in taking her to superspeciality hospital instead of government hospital
The inconvenience caused due to the accident of the car owner
The birth of still born baby

cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs for damage is a necessary ingredient of
this tort but as damage may occur before it is discovered it is the occurrence for damage which is the
starting point of the cause of action

1.1 According to Winfield “Negligence as a tort is the breach of legal duty to take care which results in
damage by the defendant to the plaintiff”
Essentials of negligence
1.defendant owed a duty of of care to the plaintiff
2.defendant made a breach of duty
3.plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof

1. Whether john was liable of negligence for the birth of still born baby?

To establish the negligence the defendants’ breach of duty must cause damage to plaintiff. The
plaintiff has also to show that the damage thus caused is not too remote a consequence of the
defendant’s negligence

“Morgan v sim” (1857) 11 Moo P.C. 307, 312.

High court in UK said that “The party seeking to recover compensation for damage must make
out that the party against whom he complains was in the wrong. He must show that the loss is
to be attributed to the negligence of the opposite party”

In K.C.Kumaran v vallabhadas vasanji and others A.I.R. 1969 Ker.9,11

In this case it is alleged by the plaintiff that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the
driver but the court held that the defendants was not liable because the plaintiff has not
satisfactorily proved that the accident was caused as a result of negligence of the defendant.
(kerala hc bench-v.balakrishna eradi). “Morgan v sim” was also cited in this case

In the present case plaintiff stated that the still born baby was due to the negligence of the john
but it was clearly mentioned in the fact that vinaya was thrown out of the moving auto to the
road.we can say that she was thrown out of the moving auto because the auto momentarily
stopped after she was thrown out suggests that the auto was running when she was thrown out
of the road. When we assume that auto was running with minimum speed and the force acted
or applied on her was also minimum the speed she was moving towards the ground will be more
because the speed of the auto and the force applied on her contributes the speed she was
moving towards the ground. According to survey conducted by National highway traffic
administration (NHTSA) the main injury caused by the ejection from vehicle is broken bones.
As she was a pregnant women and she was also ejected from the auto which can cause her an
injury to her womb which results in still born child
But the act of the defendant not taking her to the government hospital is not the proximate
cause but it’s the remote cause because it can be clearly get from the above statements that the
reason for the still born baby was ejection from vehicle but not the delay in taking her to the
hospital. The event which is immediately connected to consequence may not be a proximate but
it can be remote too.

Here the definition of proximate cause also plays an important role .according to the blacks law
dictionary proximate cause is a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause produces injury without which the result would not have occurred.in the
present cause the lady throwing from the auto was the cause which produces injury without
which the result of still born baby not occurs throwing out of the auto was the proximate cause

In Scott v Shepherd (UK case) A small fire work was thrown by shepherd into the market which
hit on the Yates and another bystander thrown it to protect themselves which hit on the Ryal
and he also threw it which hit on scott and exploded and scott lost his eye. Here the proximate
cause for the damage is the act of shepherd but not the act of scott. So shepherd was liable
The court stated that the proximate cause for an injury makes the defendant liable but not the
remote cause
So from the above case john was not liable for still born baby