The Supreme Court ruled that a car driver who suddenly applied brakes on a highway can be considered negligent in the event of an accident. This decision came after a case involving S Mohammed Hakim, an engineering student whose leg was amputated following a collision with a car that stopped unexpectedly. The driver claimed he braked suddenly because his pregnant wife felt nauseous, but the court found this explanation unreasonable.

Justice Suddhanshu Dhulia stated that drivers must signal their intentions to stop, especially on highways where vehicles travel at high speeds. The court determined that while Hakim was partially responsible for not maintaining enough distance from the car ahead and for riding without a valid license, the primary cause of the accident was the abrupt stop made by the car driver.

The court assigned liability as follows: 50% to the car driver, 30% to the bus driver involved in the incident, and 20% to Hakim for his contributory negligence. They calculated total compensation at Rs 1.14 crore (approximately $137,000), which would be reduced by 20% due to Hakim's own negligence. The insurance companies of both vehicles were ordered to pay this amount within four weeks.

Original article (highway) (pregnancy)

The article provides an analysis of a court case and its ruling, which can offer some actionable information to readers. It informs individuals about the potential legal consequences of sudden braking on highways and the importance of signaling intentions to stop. This knowledge may encourage drivers to be more cautious and aware of their actions, potentially preventing accidents.

However, the article lacks educational depth beyond the specific case details. It does not delve into the broader legal principles or traffic regulations that govern such situations. While it mentions the court's decision and the assigned liability percentages, it does not explain the legal reasoning or provide a comprehensive understanding of the relevant laws.

In terms of personal relevance, the topic is indeed important for anyone who drives or shares the road with vehicles. It highlights the potential severity of accidents caused by sudden stops and the legal implications that follow. The article's focus on a real-life incident and its outcome can serve as a cautionary tale, reminding readers of the need for responsible driving behavior.

While the article does not explicitly offer public service functions like emergency contacts or safety guidelines, it indirectly contributes to public awareness by disseminating information about a court ruling. This can help educate the public on the legal aspects of road safety and potentially reduce negligent driving behaviors.

The advice conveyed in the article, such as the importance of signaling intentions to stop, is practical and clear. It provides a simple yet effective guideline for drivers to follow, which can be easily understood and implemented.

In terms of long-term impact, the article's message promotes safer driving habits, which can have a positive and lasting effect on road safety. By encouraging drivers to be more considerate and aware of their actions, the article contributes to a culture of responsible driving, potentially reducing accidents and their associated costs over time.

Psychologically, the article may have a positive impact by raising awareness of the potential consequences of negligent driving. It can prompt readers to reflect on their own driving behaviors and make necessary adjustments, fostering a sense of responsibility and potentially reducing anxiety related to road safety.

The language used in the article is relatively neutral and does not appear to be driven by clickbait or sensationalism. While it presents a dramatic case scenario, the language is factual and informative, focusing on the legal aspects and outcomes rather than sensationalizing the incident.

To enhance the article's educational value, it could have included more detailed explanations of the legal principles involved, such as the specific traffic laws that were considered in the ruling. Additionally, providing real-world examples or statistics on the frequency and consequences of similar accidents could further emphasize the importance of the topic. For readers seeking more information, they could refer to official government websites or legal resources to understand the relevant traffic laws and regulations in their jurisdiction.

"The court assigned liability as follows: 50% to the car driver, 30% to the bus driver involved in the incident, and 20% to Hakim for his contributory negligence."

This sentence shows a bias towards assigning blame and responsibility. It uses percentages to allocate fault, which can be seen as a way to quantify and compare the actions of each party. The use of numbers may simplify a complex situation and potentially influence how readers perceive the severity of each person's actions. The order of the percentages, with the car driver's liability listed first, could suggest a greater focus on their role in the accident.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily centered around the theme of justice and its impact on the individuals involved. Sadness is a prominent emotion, stemming from the tragic event of S. Mohammed Hakim's leg amputation following the collision. The description of his injury and the subsequent legal proceedings evoke a sense of empathy and compassion for Hakim's plight. This sadness is further intensified by the revelation that Hakim was riding without a valid license, suggesting a sense of vulnerability and perhaps even desperation.

Anger and frustration are also evident, directed towards the car driver's negligence. The sudden braking, deemed unreasonable by the court, is a clear breach of responsibility, especially on a high-speed highway. This emotion is heightened by the driver's attempt to justify his actions, which the court found unacceptable. The text's use of the word "negligent" carries a strong emotional weight, implying a lack of care and consideration for others' safety.

Fear is another underlying emotion, particularly for those who frequently drive or travel on highways. The incident serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the potential consequences of sudden stops and the importance of signaling intentions. This fear is likely intended to encourage more cautious driving behaviors, ensuring that similar accidents are avoided in the future.

The text also conveys a sense of relief and satisfaction with the court's decision. Justice Dhulia's statement, emphasizing the need for drivers to signal their stops, provides a clear guideline for future behavior. The allocation of liability, while complex, ensures that all parties are held accountable for their actions. This sense of justice being served is likely to instill trust in the legal system and its ability to handle such cases fairly.

To persuade readers, the writer employs several emotional tactics. Firstly, the personal story of S. Mohammed Hakim is a powerful tool, humanizing the legal proceedings and making the consequences more tangible. By focusing on Hakim's injury and the impact on his life, the writer evokes a strong emotional response, encouraging readers to consider the human cost of such accidents.

Additionally, the use of descriptive language, such as "suddenly applied brakes" and "unexpectedly," creates a sense of urgency and danger. These words paint a vivid picture of the accident, emphasizing the potential harm that can result from such actions. The repetition of the word "negligent" further reinforces the seriousness of the driver's actions and the need for accountability.

By skillfully weaving these emotions and persuasive techniques throughout the text, the writer guides the reader's reaction. The emotions of sadness, anger, and fear encourage a sense of empathy and understanding, while the satisfaction with the court's decision builds trust in the legal process. This emotional journey aims to educate and inspire action, promoting safer driving practices and a more cautious approach to highway travel.