In this case, the plaintiff who himself and his children have got injuries due to the shock

of the fireworks on the rail which accidently fell off the hands of the person getting on board, intends to sue somebody for compensation. So this case basically is one based on laws of torts. The case includes lots of issues in which some are of primary nature and some comes afterwards. The main issue that one can find out is that who is the liable person in a real sense? If the liable person is known, on what ground the person is going to be sued and is there any chance of the situation which can tell that nobody was liable? Obviously being a case of tort law, the plaintiff will sue the party; he considers being liable on the grounds of negligence and the party which more likely looks to be liable is the man who owned these fireworks. Now as for as the principle of Negligence in Tort law is concerned, it basically has three main elements and then a sub element, as given follow; a. Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the public including the plaintiff? b. If it was his utmost duty, was that breached? c. Did the breach in his duty cause an injury or harm to the plaintiff? And the last element; were the consequences that happened to the plaintiff, that happened due to the action or inaction of the defendant foreseeable reasonably? (Larson) In this situation, since the person who more likely seems to be liable is the man who owned those fireworks should be judged on these questions. Since, he was carrying fireworks with himself, it was his utmost responsibility to take care of the people and refrain from such things which could result in any harm to the people who were around him. Obviously, he did not do his duty and this responsibility was breached. He had to take care of those fireworks and it was his responsibility that his fireworks would not cause any harm to anyone but he failed and it clearly resulted in injuries to the plaintiff and his children.

Now the question that arises is that were the consequences foreseeable? So the answer to that is clearly no, since the accident did not happen directly by the firework but a chain of causations happened. Finding who is liable and why, one can lead to two kinds of answers; first, the owner of the fireworks, who did some negligence on his part and breached his responsibility but still he cannot be labeled as being liable since he did not do it intentionally, secondly the chain of causation was affected by the guards of railway and third the consequences were reasonably unforeseeable. Another answer to this question can be railways, since there is a lot of carelessness and irresponsibility shown from the people who were on duty that time, if the law followed in case was the Pakistani law. The article 107 of the Railways Act says that If in contravention of section 59 a person takes with him any dangerous or offensive goods upon the railway, or tenders or delivers any such goods for carriage upon the railway, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand Rupees and imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be responsible for any loss, injury or damage which may be caused by reason of such goods having been so brought upon the railway (Offences). So it was railways responsibility to make sure that any person on board does not have anything that could result in any harm to the public surrounding. The Railway act article 118 also says that it if a passenger enters or leaves, or attempts to enter or leave, any carriage while the train is in motion, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees ("Railways Act, 1890."). So helping the person getting on board while the train is moving is totally bizarre. So obviously, there is a negligence and carelessness on the side of railways as well. Although the situation looks more like one in which there one of the two or both the railway and the owner of the fireworks can be called liable, but in reality the whole happening is just an accident. The person who was carrying fireworks did not let the fall the packet intentionally, it happened during the effort when he was trying to get on board. In the same way on the part of railway, nothing that happened

was deliberate and they had no intention of producing this shock, in fact they did not even know about the presence of fireworks. Another factor which can support the point that this whole happening was merely an accident is that all of the parties whether the plaintiff or the defendants could not foresee this because it happened in a chain of causes and their effects. The fireworks are dropped, as a result a shock is produced, which in turn knocked down some machinery on the other end of platform where the plaintiff was standing and then as a result of that plaintiff and his children are knocked down. In case of determining a case of negligence in Tort laws, this factor of foreseeing is of much importance, so since the happening was not foreseeable, it was just an accident, although there had been some negligence on the part of the defendant. Another question which arises is that, whether a crime has been committed or not. So there has been no crime committed as for as the case filed by plaintiff is concerned because crime is always deliberate and intentional, and it is on criminal side, while this is a Torts case, which belongs to civil side. Generally speaking a crime has been committed, though it will not be considered in this case and it is that transportation of fireworks on train, which by constitution is not allowed and it is a crime since it can result in an imprisonment which can extend to a period of two years. But since, it will not be considered in the case filed by the plaintiff, so a crime has not been committed, if looked from the case of the plaintiff.

Works cited Larson, Aaron. "Negligence and Tort Law" Legal Help, Directories, Articles, and Forums From Expert Law. Web. 13 May 2011. <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html>. "Chapter IX, Offences." Pakistan Railway Act, 1890, 1997. Web. 13 May 2011. "Railways Act, 1890." Jamil and Jamil. Web. 13 May 2011. <http://jamilandjamil.com/?p=829>.