What about Mistakes & Crimes of Juveniles?

Bapoo Malcolm 14 April 2014

If a boy falls off a bus while showing bravado, should the bus company be held responsible?

These days juveniles are very much in the news for committing adult crimes. Those

under 18 years of age are considered as not fully mature and treated with kid-gloves, rather than being tried as adults.

The contention is that they are not totally aware of the consequences of their actions. It may or may not be true and that discussion is best left for another day. Today, we argue about the fine balance between knowledge, safety, bravado and care.

A boy of 11 years was travelling by a public transport bus in Mumbai. He was standing near the door. As is common in heavy AND crazy traffic, the bus driver suddenly braked to a halt. The boy lost his grip and fell out of the bus. Tragically, he landed on the road and was run over by another vehicle. He died.

Now, you be the judge.

Consider the facts. A boy of 11, not a child. Travelling alone or without a proper chaperone. Aware of the dangers of standing near the door of a moving bus or not? Was he just showing-off, as most youngsters are prone to do? Was he not paying attention to the possible danger?

What about the other driver? The one under whose car the boy was crushed to death. In Mumbai’s traffic, where everyone is driving bumper-to-bumper, is it not impossible to avoid being involved in such a tragedy? And who should bear the blame? The boy? His parents? The bus driver? The other driver? Or the person who caused the dangerous situation that the bus driver was forced to apply brakes on an emergency basis? The bus company?

The court held against BEST, the bus company. This is where the question of negligence and the duty of care dovetail in law. Negligence is defined as wilful disregard in the course of duty. It involves the knowledge that something can go wrong if proper care is not taken.

Invariably, in such cases, the law has a fall-back position. It takes refuge behind the argument of what a ‘prudent’ man would do in similar circumstances. Common sense being an uncommon commodity, prudence is the catch-all phrase. And then the courts decide on who had the greater responsibility.

A child’s life is lost in terrible circumstances. It happens everyday. In our young days, our Dad would not allow us to travel on trains on what was called the ‘foot-board’, for fear that our school bags would get caught in the railway track equipment, mainly poles. Here, a bus would be relatively safe. But did the boy’s parents caution him against standing near the door?

The other driver’s defence would be that he cannot be held responsible if a human being lands in front of his car, literally from thin air. What about BEST, the bus company?

When a company, or even an individual, provides a service, he has a duty of care. The conductor should ensure that the child is away from the door of a moving bus. Many will argue that, in this day and age, it is an impossibility. But then, we go back to our worn-out phrase: ‘If there is a malady, there has to be a remedy’.

Obviously, the traffic accident tribunal pinned the blame on the Bombay Municipal Corporation (as it was known in 1985), since BEST is owned by them. The Corporation was the respondent in the matter, not the driver.

It was a clever move by the deceased boy’s advocate and is one more instance of not only finding the right forum but also the correct entity to file the suit against, for both, retribution and costs.

Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai. Please email your comments to