I argue that the resort management was (at least) guilty of negligence. Of course no harm came to any resort guests the night of the Bakery bombing. Hence the “harm requirement” for compensation is not met, and so no one is entitled to damages (unless a person suffered considerable emotional distress). Just because no actual harm was done does not mean that there was no breach of duty or that there was no negligence. I still argue from the information I have that there was a breach of duty and a case of negligence. If I do not get hurt then I cannot sue for negligence, but that does not mean there was no negligence in the exposure to potential harm.
If Pune resort supplies guests with drinking water, it has to by law ensure that this water is completely clean. If the water is not completely clean then the resort has breached the law. In the same way the Pune resort has a legal duty of care. If the resort has acted in a negligent manner then it has breached this legal requirement. Fortunately the resort was not victim to a terrorist attack that night. I can not say that the people who have consumed the resort’s water faired so well. In any case there is a legal breach on both counts. It is in my opinion two cases of negligence.
The Pune police have booked 30 establishments for not following the recently issued terrorism safety guidelines. This is a breach under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (disobedience to duly promulgated orders from authorities). I do not know what was in the safety guidelines, but I find it hard to view the resorts inaction that night anything other than clear evidence of a failure to comply. To have had these guidelines issued is itself implying a general requirement to be vigilant with respect to terrorism. It raises the bar of what would be expected of the relevant parties to ensure the safety of people from the threat of terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment