Tort Law

Minor Veeran v. T.V. Krishnamoorthy

AIR 1966 Ker 172

Facts

• Veeran was a boy approximately six years old.
• He and a large group of schoolchildren were waiting beside a road to cross.
• A bus passed the children.
• A lorry owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant was travelling behind the bus.
• The road was substantially straight.
• The lorry driver could see the children from approximately seventy-five to one hundred yards away.
• After the bus passed, the children began crossing the road.
• The lorry struck Veeran.
• The child suffered serious personal injuries.
• He remained unconscious and required treatment in a nursing home for approximately fifty-six days.
• Veeran, acting through his father, sued the lorry owner and driver.
• The trial court found the driver negligent and awarded compensation for medical expenses.
• The first appellate court reversed the decision.
• Veeran appealed to the Kerala High Court.

• Whether the lorry driver failed to exercise reasonable care after seeing children beside the road.
• Whether the driver was required to anticipate sudden or imprudent conduct by young children.
• Whether a six-year-old child could be held contributorily negligent.
• Whether the vehicle owner was vicariously liable.
• Whether general damages could be awarded for pain and suffering without permanent disability.

• A driver must exercise the care of a reasonable driver in the circumstances.
• The visible presence of children requires special practical caution because children:
o may act suddenly;
o may misjudge speed and distance;
o may fail to follow traffic rules; and
o lack adult judgment.
• A reasonable driver who sees children likely to cross must:
o reduce speed;
o maintain control;
o sound an appropriate warning; and
o be prepared to stop.
• A very young child is not judged by the adult reasonable-person standard.
• Depending upon age and understanding, a young child may be incapable of contributory negligence.
• An employer or vehicle owner is vicariously liable where the driver negligently causes injury in the course of employment.
• Pain, suffering and loss of amenities may be compensated through general damages even without permanent disability.

• The driver had an unobstructed view of a large group of schoolchildren from a substantial distance.
• Their position beside the road made it reasonably foreseeable that they would cross after the bus passed.
• A careful driver would have reduced speed immediately and kept the lorry under close control.
• Evidence indicated that the vehicle could have been stopped within a distance significantly shorter than the seventy-five to one hundred yards available.
• The failure to slow or stop therefore fell below reasonable care.
• Veeran was only six years old.
• He could not be expected to calculate the speed of the lorry or the time required to cross with adult accuracy.
• His behaviour did not establish contributory negligence.
• The driver was acting in the course of his employment, making the lorry owner vicariously liable.
• The High Court also criticised the suggestion that general damages were unavailable merely because Veeran eventually recovered without permanent disability.
• Prolonged unconsciousness, pain, hospitalisation and physical injury were genuine losses.
• Procedural limitations on the appeal nevertheless affected the final amount restored.

• The Kerala High Court allowed Veeran’s appeal.
• The lorry driver was negligent because he failed to exercise the heightened caution reasonably required after seeing young children ready to cross.
• Veeran was not contributorily negligent.
• The vehicle owner was vicariously liable.
• The trial court’s compensation award was restored.