This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, Plaintiff, against Gloria Supermart, Inc., Defendant, before this Honorable Court for the injuries her son, Ricky, suffered at its premises, for the expense, and for the emotional pain that it caused Plaintiff and her son. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully states that: 1) Plaintiff is Jonna Bueno, 35 years of age, married, and a resident of 89 Little Baguio St., San Juan City, Metro Manila; Defendant is Gloria Supermart, Inc. with address at Ortigas Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila. 2) On 11 May 2011 at about 10:00 AM, Plaintiff and her son Ricky went to Defendant’s store to purchase tomato sauce for her son’s spaghetti where there occurred an unfortunate turn of events. 3) While shopping, Ricky saw a small ball rolling down an aisle. Young at the age of five, the child’s attention was caught by the plaything. 4) Coming after the ball, Ricky did not notice that there was a puddle in the aisle where he slipped with a heavy bang. 5) Feeling pain in his right wrist, Ricky was immediately brought by plaintiff to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital where he was treated. 6) Ricky suffered a bone fracture due to the incident and took him six weeks to recover. 7) Plaintiff incurred hospital expenses amounting to P22,840.00, which includes the doctor’s fee and medication. 8) The expenses do not yet cover the mental anguish suffered by the mother and child; the mother from the risk of losing her own son and Ricky from the six weeks of recovery he had to undergo aside from the physical pain. 9) From the testimony of Plaintiff (TSN dated 7 June 2011), her allegations are as follows: a) Defendant’s employees are guilty of negligence when they did not clean up the aisles to remove injurious materials. b) As the owner of the establishment, Defendant should be made liable for the injuries caused by its negligent employees in the service of the branch.
IV. 12) To be liable then. (TSN. Defendant should not have been held liable. and without which the result would not have occurred (Ramos v. are as follows: a) Plaintiff was guilty of negligence when she did not properly watch over her son. (emphasis added) II. 597 SCRA 526). 14 June 2011) ISSUES I. c) The event was an accident since it could not have been foreseen. 10) Defendant’s allegations. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. 11) Art. Plaintiff therefore should be responsible for the actions of the child under her care. b) Plaintiff retained her parental authority and was no t transferred to Defendant. there being fault or NEGLIGENCE is obliged to pay for the damage done. Rene Castro.L. produces the injury.. . in natural and continuous sequence. III. which. based on the testimony given by their supermarket supervisor. 2176 of the New Civil Code provides in sum that whoever by act or OMISSION causes damage to another. on the other hand. 13) Proximate cause is that cause. C. Realty Corp. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEES’ NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT CAN BE MADE LIABLE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED LIABILITY WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES ARGUMENTS I.c) Defendant should be made liable for actual and moral damages for the expenses incurred and the emotional suffering undergone by Plaintiff and her child. the act or omission should be the proximate cause of the damage. Defendant’s employees failed to observe due diligence in performing their functions.O.
Rene Castro in his testimony. 20) The doctrine of imputed liability applies squarely to this case. after all. 17) 18) Furthermore. The employees should have been vigilant in preventing injuries from happening and this includes maintaining a safe environment. there would have been no injury. 2180 makes the owners and managers of an establishment responsible for the damages caused by their employees in the service of their branches. Art. III. just like what happened to Ricky. it failed to exercise due diligence. Ricky could not have been injured. Defendant should have installed safeguards to ensure that its hundreds of customers are not put at risk. What happened to Ricky. Defendant is responsible for the negligent act of its employees. 15) In failing to maintain a safe environment for the hundreds of shop goers. Without the puddle. The injury could have been avoided if only they have done so. Had they cleaned up the aisle as necessary. there is an omission on the part of the employees when they failed to clean up the aisle when their merchandise leaked and formed a puddle. It cannot be said that Defendant’s employees observed due diligence. Defendant’s own witness would belie such claim. Defendant should then be held liable under the doctrine of imputed liability. 19) Having failed to ensure the safety of its clientele. The particular circumstance of Defendant as well as its history should have been clear indications that there is a need to adopt a more adequate policy for safety. 16) Had the aisle been properly maintained. as claimed by Defendant’s own witness. In fact. The omission then on the part of the Defendant’s employees is the proximate cause of the injury sustained. Defendant then unduly exposes these hundreds of people to injury. given the amount of traffic going in and out the store. Ricky would not have been slipped and suffered from the fall. Plaintiff was not negligent 23) Defendant cannot shield itself from liability by claiming that it was Plaintiff who was negligent. II.14) In the case at bar. 22) As the owner of the establishment where the quasi-delict occurred. It then baffles Plaintiff why Defendant does not impose a stricter policy to ensure that such events never occur. and the practice of allowing children to enter supermarkets. As stated by the witness. Such claim is untenable as can be seen from the . could have been prevented. this type of incident happens at least once a year. 21) It cannot be denied that the employees have been remiss in performing their functions.
This is because such provision is qualified by the statement “subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. Defendant cannot also seek to be exempted through Art. and noticed that one of the bottles have leaked from the shelf. on the other hand. saw her only son slip on a wet section.evidence presented. it is natural for him to be a little distracted by colorful wrappers and toys. It is contrary to human experience that a parent would allow his or her only child to be exposed to peril.” In this case. 24) Plaintiff. While there was nothing unnatural with the actions of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff saw her child chase a ball down the aisle. through her testimony. it is an allowed practice to let children enter the premises with their parents. this is but an opinion expressly excluded by the Rules on Evidence and is therefore inadmissible. Defendant’s witness admitted that he was not present at the scene when it happened but merely based his testimony on what was suggested by what he saw. 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) IV. In addition. Instead. the presence of the puddle was in itself unnatural. did not present any competent evidence to counter Plaintiff’s allegations. 25) Defendant. the actions of Plaintiff do not even suggest negligence on her part. It cannot be believed though that such permission amounted to lack of due diligence on the part of Plaintiff. There was nothing wrong with bringing a child in the supermarket since as admitted by the supervisor. Not having personally witnessed the event. In his testimony. There is also nothing unnatural with a parent allowing the child to walk ahead and that does not by itself constitute negligence. Given the playful nature of a fiveyear-old surrounded by knickknacks of sorts. 221 of the Family Code which makes the parents liable for the damages and injuries caused by the acts or omission of their unemancipated minor. Rene Castro was not competent to testify as to that fact. Clearly. Defendant should be made to pay damages having caused injuries . sufficiently established the negligence of Defendant and its employees based on what she observed. Plaintiff can invoke the provision of quasi-delict and the defense that it is the Defendant whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Defendant relied on the mere opinion of its supermarket supervisor on what he assumes to have transpired.
the entire amount should be shouldered by defendant. Quezon City (Sgd. 2219. 2217 of the Civil Code allows such recovery in cases of quasi-delict causing physical injuries.00. Having duly proved the amount of damages up to P22. Such other relief which are just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. 2199 of the Civil Code.32) The claim for actual damages is based on Art. as provided in Art. Plaintiff should be entitled to it as actual damages.000. moral damages should likewise be awarded for the physical suffering of Ricky and for the mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff from the thought of losing her only child.) (Address) (IBP No. premises considered. without mitigation.840. RELIEF 33) 34) 35) Wherefore. it is respectfully prayed that Defendant be made liable to pay P500. Since Defendant failed to prove negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Having duly proven negligence on the part of Defendant and its being the proximate cause of the injury. Aside from actual damages. Art.) (PTR) (MCLE Compliance) (Copy furnished) . Defendant should be liable for the amount proven.00 for actual damages caused by the negligent act of Defendant and its employees. 26 November 2011.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.