Speedy Car kills pavement sleepers--Who is Guilty ?

Sir, as a student of law, I would say, the accident has happened because of the teenager's negligent driving.  He is at fault coz, even though the people were sleeping there would not have died if he was careful enough to drive on the road instead on foot path. Now, why those people were sleeping on foot path is a next question which Govt has to answer.  :)

Rash and negligent driving of the driver is wholly responsible for the accident.

And the teenager cannot take any defense like contributory negligence by the people who slept on pavements also, as that has nothing to do with people who are supposed to drive on roads. Also, sleeping on the footpaths isnt as serious an offence (if at all, since they have nowhere else to go) as fast and rash driving, endangering their lives AND of others.

There are many other similar scenarios -- e.g. most of our pedestrians cross the road illegally -- they are supposed to go to a pedestrian crossing and then maybe wait for the traffic signal, but they seldom do. That doesn't mean that our drivers should be able to get away with running them over? It is still the driver's responsiblity to ensure safety of pedestrians.

I concur with Suchitra and Aravinthan. Whether foot path sleepers or sleep walker the driver on the wheel of the car owe duty of care to people on the road.

Madhuji a very good topic.

Vehicles r vehicles it may go uncontrolled sometimes or anytime, that can not said as negligent driving. We should not forget that "Mr.Ayrton Senna da Silva" was a Brazilian racing driver and three-time Formula One world champion. An expert in car racing beyond comparable. But unfortunately he died in an accident with a fault that was unbelievable that being an expert he can commit. So, accident can happen any time.

The other thing is that "Is roadside pavements meant for sleeping?" Is it not  a fun or mockery of traffic rules? If some sleeps, then why traffic police allows them? Does not it a violation of traffic rules? Why govt. do not provide some other safer place to sleep for them? As per my opinion it is they who sleep in these unsafe places along with traffic Police and govt. is responsible for such type of incidents.

If any passing train hits any vehicle or anyone at the unmanned railway crossing, Is only driver of the train is responsible or also passersby too should be held accountable?

Dear All,

The four essential ingredients of any criminal offence could be  : intention, act, knowledge and consequences in my considerate view the case in hand meets all these ingredients.

Best Regards

Daksh

Suchitra Ji, Thnx for active contribution.

Now abt. this thread,I said that boy was YOUTH but not a TEENAGER.

And if a vehicle gets out out of control how could you conclude that it is RASH and NEGLIGENT driving even when the driver is not under the influence of liquor.

Of course FOOTPATHS are not meant for car driving but they are also not meant for sleeping after all they are PATHS--not  BEDS.

Mr. Daksh thnx for active contribution.

I can understand the three ingredients you have talked but not the fourth one---intention.Where is the intention here of killing the footpath sleepers ?

Madhu,

There are two ways of putting the things in correct perspective from the criterian of  conducting the trial.  One is either or all of these ingredient makes an act or omission and comission culpable and secondly committing an act implies intention as well.

Best Regards

Daksh

Sir, sorry for mentioning as 'teenager' instead of 'youth'. But there would be no difference in my earlier opinions though. 

Running over somebody will be automatically dealt with as a criminal offence. So the driver will be charged by the state for rash driving and maybe manslaughter. If the driver can make a case that the accident was unavoidable and not his fault, I am sure the court will acquit him. But it will be difficult for the driver to make such a case because it is hard to understand how you can run somebody over if you observe the speed limit (often absurdly low, like 50 kmph) -- unless there was something like a brake failure, in which case the car owner is still liable.