PLAINTIFF

RESPONDENT
The facts raised by the plaintiff were not entirely
true. It must have been bias because the victim
was the plaintiffs own child, not to mention that
the latter was emotionally and mentally
stressed; therefore she was incoherent to
disclose the actuality of the incident.
What she said about not having employees
nearby - Mr. Castro was actually near the
incident and that he was sure that there was no
puddle of liquid that spilled from the shelf.

ROYAL SUPERMART IS NEGLIGENT

Miss Joan Cruz has been shopping in the said

establishment for 20 years, therefore, as a
parent who raises a five year-old child; she
should have the considerable knowledge and
experience when it comes to hazards of
shopping. Yet, it turned out that she was not
careful to her child when she brought him to a
public place as such. She said that she saw Bboy
running around, she should have stopped Biboy
and called Biboys attention. So, she is negligent.
The supermart has been operating for at least 20
years. In that span of time, they have
experienced accidents so, consequently, they
have maintained safeguards to prevent
accidents.
Mr. Castro saw bottles falling. Because there
were bottles falling, it would be implied that
Biboy did crash into the shelf, therefore leading
him to an accident.

ROYAL SUPERMART SHOULD PAY FOR THE

DAMAGES

Based on the facts that we were not negligent,

we would not pay for the damages, as asserted
by the plaintiff.
Article 2179 provides that:

Attractive nuisance cannot be applied.

*ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

Since supermarket allows children, the

supermarket has already prepared safety
measures to prevent them from being injured.
Physics c/o Nicole Barlaan