A boy, playing on the road, was about to be run over by a taxicab. The driver, however, applied the breaks and brought the cab to a screeching halt and the boy was slightly injured. The mother of the boy who happened to watch the same from her house at a distance of 100 meters from the sight, suffered a nervous shock. The driver is:

The correct answer is D. Not liable, because the damage is not reasonably foreseeable.

In easy terms, this is a classic problem of "Nervous Shock" in the Law of Torts. It tests whether a person is responsible for the mental trauma of someone who wasn't in the "danger zone" themselves.

1. The Core Concept: Reasonable Foreseeability
For a person to be held liable for negligence, the harm must be a foreseeable consequence of their actions.

The Boy: It is foreseeable that if you drive poorly, you might hit a boy on the road. The driver owes a duty of care to the boy.

The Mother: The driver could not reasonably expect that a person sitting inside a house 100 meters away would suffer a clinical nervous shock just by witnessing the event. The mother was in a position of "safety" and was not herself in danger of being hit.

2. The "Duty of Care" Boundary
The law does not make you responsible for the mental health of the entire world. To be liable for nervous shock to a bystander (someone not directly involved in the accident), the law usually requires:

Proximity of Time and Space: You must be at the scene or come upon its immediate aftermath.

Proximity of Relationship: Usually, this applies to close relatives (like a mother).

Foreseeability: A person of "normal fortitude" (standard mental strength) would have suffered shock in that situation.

3. Why the other options are wrong
Option B & C: These suggest the driver is liable. However, 100 meters is considered too distant for the driver to "foresee" that his braking would cause a medical shock to someone inside a building.

Option A: This is a bit too broad. A driver can owe a duty of care to a mother, but only if she is within the "area of potential danger." Option D is the more precise legal reason because it explains why the duty doesn't extend that far in this specific case.

4. Famous Landmark Case: Bourhill v. Young (1943)
This scenario is almost identical to the famous case of Bourhill v. Young.

A motorcyclist had an accident due to his own negligence and died.

A pregnant woman, who was 45 feet away and didn't see the crash but heard it and later saw the blood, suffered a nervous shock and a stillbirth.

The Court held: The motorcyclist was not liable. He could not have reasonably foreseen that someone in her position would suffer such a shock.