Você está na página 1de 4

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff Jonna

Bueno, filed an action for damages against Gloria Supermart, Inc., before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. She claims P500,000.00 as damages for the injuries suffered by her minor son, Ricky, caused by the negligence of the defendants employees and for the emotional pain and suffering that it caused to them. Defendant Gloria Supermart denies her claim and asserts that it was not negligent. Instead, it claims that the accident was caused by Jonnas negligence and she alone should be made to suffer the consequences of her own actions. Both parties have presented their evidences and witnesses. The case is now submitted for decision. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS At about ten in the morning of May 11, 2010, Jonna Bueno and her 5-year old son, Ricky, were grocery shopping at Gloria Supermart located in Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila. Supposedly, they were to buy tomato sauce for Rickys spaghetti along with other things. In the middle of their shopping, a small ball rolled along the aisle and Ricky ran for it. However, he stepped over a puddle of syrup and slipped. He fell so hard with a heavy bang that shrieked in pain. Apparently, he hurt his wrist as he tried to stop his fall. Jonna immediately come to his sons aid. As she attended him, she noticed that the syrup on the floor seeped out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf. Meanwhile, Rene Castro, the supermarket supervisor, approached her. She asked him to help her carry her son to her car, so that she can rush him to the hospital. She then brought Ricky to the Philippine Orthopaedic Hospital, where he was handled by Dr. John D. Lim, the physician-on-duty at the emergency room. Dr. Lim operated on Rickys right wrist. He had to restore the position of his fractured bone. Thereafter, he required Ricky to stay overnight at the hospital for pain management and care. Ricky was released the next day. At first, he complained that his wrist caused him great pain. Later on, he moved with discomfort and difficulty. He was unable to use both hands. It took him 6 weeks to fully recover. His mother spent P22,840.00 all in all for his doctors fee, hospitalization and medication. Moreover, she experienced mental suffering as she witnessed her only sons painful recovery. On the other hand, Rene Castro, Glorias supermarket supervisor, testified for the defendant. He claimed that at ten in the morning of May 11, 2010, he was fixing the new stock of instant noodles when he heard a commotion at the next aisle. He quickly walked towards the noise and saw Ricky lying on the floor and crying in pain. His mother, Jonna, was trying to minister him. He observed that bottles of syrup from a nearby shelf fell from the floor, including a glass bottle that was broken and spilled part of its contents to the floor. He assisted Jonna in rushing Ricky to the hospital. While Ricky was undergoing surgery, he talked to Jonna and she said that her son slipped on the floor because some syrup seeped out of a leaking bottle in one of the shelves. She blamed the supermarket for the accident. Though he thought differently, Rene kept his silence.

ISSUES The issues of the case, as determined by the court in its pre-trial order, are as follows: 1. 2. Whether or not Gloria Supermart is liable for damages for the injury suffered by Ricky Bueno; and Whether or not Jonna Bueno was contributorily negligent for the accident, which calls for the reduction in claimed damages. ARGUMENTS 1. GLORIA SUPERMART IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES SINCE ITS EMPLOYEES NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

As it can be gleaned from the records, Ricky suffered from a fractured bone when he tried to stop his fall as he slipped over a puddle of syrup. The syrup apparently seeped out from a broken bottle in a nearby shelf. Ordinarily, the supermarkets employees should have detected the mess and cleaned the area. At the very least, it should have placed a warning sign informing buyers to pass by with caution. But it didnt. It failed to meet its responsibility to keep the premises neat and clear from obstructions. It was negligent in maintaining cleanliness and should be held accountable if by reason of such negligence, customers have suffered from mishaps. In Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 129792, December 21, 1999), the Court defined negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Following this definition, the test of negligence is therefore this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? Applying this question to the case, it is clear that Gloria Supermart was negligent. As a supermarket, tons of customers pass by its aisles everyday to purchase something. It was the responsibility of Gloria to keep those aisles clean and clear in order to ensure the safety and continued patronage of its buyers. When a bottle of syrup got broken and its contents spilled on the floor, it was the burden of Gloria to keep on eye out for these expected eventualities and to immediately address the issue. It should have expected, like any ordinarily prudent and reasonable man, that a hapless buyer would eventually step on it without noticing and slip because of it. After all, buyers do not look on the floor when they buy their groceries. It is common knowledge that they look sideways on the aisles as they search for the items they need. Gloria should have deployed employees to regularly survey their aisles and see if they steered clear from obstructions. This negligence was the proximate cause of Rickys injury. Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening

cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. (Ramos v. COL Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009). Had there been no syrup on the floor, Ricky would not have slipped and suffered a bad fall. Even if, admittedly, Ricky was running at the time he stepped on the puddle, he wouldnt have ordinarily fractured his bone had the floor been clear from obstructions. Besides, syrups, by their very nature, are transparent. Only a scrutinizing eye can detect its presence on the floor and buyers are not expected to act in this manner. Considering that Gloria Supermarts employees were negligent and such negligence was the proximate cause for Rickys injury, Gloria Supermart should be held accountable. Article 2180 of the Civil Code supports this conclusion. It states, The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. 2. JONNA BUENO WAS NOT CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT FOR HER SONS INJURY

Jonna was not negligent in watching over her son, while they were grocery shopping. Indeed, parents have the natural right and duty to take care and discipline their children. But Jonna did not show lack of due care when she let Ricky run after the ball. The records show that she was watching her son at that time. Furthermore, a child running after a ball does not necessarily mean that he is engaged in play. The child may be actually trying to fetch the ball and return it to its rightful place or owner. There was no reason for Jonna discipline nor closely monitor her child at that time. Also, Jonna couldnt have reasonably foreseen her sons mishap. As mentioned earlier, the syrup was presumably transparent and couldnt be detected unless scrutinized up close. She also had good reason to believe that the supermarket regularly maintains the cleanliness of its store. There is no basis to find her negligent. 3. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE IS NO PROOF AS TO WHO OR WHAT CAUSED THE SYRUP TO FALL ON THE FLOOR, GLORIA SUPERMARKET IS STILL LIABLE UNDER RES IPSA LOQUITOR.

In his testimony, Rene Castro made a baseless inference that the syrup on the floor must have come from one of the bottles that Ricky knocked off from the shelf when he ran wild down the aisle. This should not be given credence since Rene himself testified that he did not see how the incident happened. Therefore, he did not have the competence to testify on that matter. But granting, for the sake of argument, that there is no proof as to who or what caused the spillage, Gloria Supermart should still be held liable based on the doctrine of res

ipsa loquitor. First of all, Rickys accident, as explained earlier, was due to the supermarket employees negligence in failing to maintain the cleanliness of the store. Secondly, it is without a doubt that the supermarkets premises is within exclusive management and control of Gloria Supermart. Thirdly, it has been established that Ricky did not contribute to his injury. Any other person would have slipped, had they stepped on the syrup-coated floor. All these three elements put into operation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, which strengthens plaintiffs position that the supermarket is liable for damages. 4. JONNA IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES AND MORAL DAMAGES

Jonna has presented receipts proving that she incurred P22,840.00 in expenses for her sons over-all treatment. Based on Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, she is entitled to actual damages. In addition, she is entitled for moral damages for the mental suffering she experienced. Since this action is based on Gloria Supermarts quasi-delict resulting in physical injuries, she should be allowed to recover it in accordance with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code. PRAYER Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the court renders judgment: 1. finding Gloria Supermart liable for damages, and 2. ordering the defendant to pay P500,000.00 all-in-all as damages including P22,840.00 as compensatory damages. All other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for.

xxxx Counsel for the Plaintiff Address Attorney Roll No. IBP MCLE No.