Death by negligence and our legal rights

The recent Farmgate tragedy, in which a man lost his life after being struck by a bearing pad falling from the Metrorail infrastructure, comes as a timely reminder of how public safety is too often sacrificed to negligence. Besides the tragedy, this incident raises fundamental questions related to accountability, legal responsibility, and the state's duty towards guaranteeing people's safety.

Generally, in tragic incidents like this, the law of tortious liability comes into action. Negligence in tort law comes in play when an authority or person fails to exercise 'reasonable care' to avoid injury or loss to another human being. The Metrorail authorities, including contractors and relevant regulatory bodies, clearly owe a duty of care to the public, especially when they had the knowledge that pedestrians regularly pass through such areas. Using proper equipment, machinery, or material, which do not potentially put lives at risk, is not only a moral obligation but also a legal obligation.

Here, the occurrence in question could invoke the legal doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', meaning 'the thing speaks for itself'. It is a rule of law in which the incident is of such a nature that it would tend to generate a presumption of negligence on the defendant's part. Hence, the burden falls squarely on the defendant, and he/she has to prove that they were not negligent.

The recent Farmgate tragedy, in which a man lost his life after being struck by a bearing pad falling from the Metrorail infrastructure, comes as a timely reminder of how public safety is too often sacrificed to negligence. Besides the tragedy, this incident raises fundamental questions related to accountability, legal responsibility, and the state's duty towards guaranteeing people's safety.

For too long, the perception has persisted that tort law has little practical application in Bangladesh. However, recent judicial decisions have negated such views. In 2015, a 5-year-old boy named Nirab died after he fell into an open sewer in Dhaka. The government authorities, WASA and DSCC, were made subject to a writ petition by the Children's Charity Foundation to claim compensation. The High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ordered the government to explain why it should not compensate the family. The case shows that the state can be held liable for negligence and proves that citizens have enforceable rights when state negligence causes harm or death.

Thus, it can be said that the victim's family in the present case has a clear legal right to approach the HCD under Article 102(1) of the Constitution, exercising the court's writ jurisdiction to seek compensation for violation of the fundamental right of life and safety. In fact, writ petitions are often more likely to provide relief than traditional civil actions, especially against public authorities.

On the other hand, the victim's family can arguably pursue a civil claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. According to this law, the relatives of a person who is killed by the negligence of another party are entitled to be compensated for wrongful death. Given the scale and nature of the damages, the claim ought to be one for large damages to compensate both for the emotional and financial loss incurred by the dependents.

This disaster cannot be brushed off as merely an isolated or unfortunate accident. It reflects basic issues in monitoring the infrastructure development, ensuring safety, and addressing liability in Bangladesh. The Government and Metro Rail authorities must conduct an independent inquiry, pay compensation to the victim's family immediately, and adopt stronger safety protocols. More importantly, the legal community and civil society should push for more effective tort law reforms e.g., more linear and categorical procedures for compensation claims by the public and better mechanisms for enforcing state liability.

The writer is law student at BRAC University.