This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
This is an action for damages in the amount of P500,000 filed by plaintiff Jonna Bueno against respondent Gloria Supermart, Inc. Plaintiff’s son Ricky, suffered injuries when he slipped because of the wet floor in the supermarket. She claims that the gross negligence of the management and employees of respondent is the proximate cause of the injury. Respondent for its defense claims that it exercised proper diligence in maintaining the safety of its customers and that the accident is beyond its control. In addition, Gloria Supermart, Inc. claims that plaintiff and her son contributed to the cause of the accident. Following the principle in Article 2176 of New Civil Code, Gloria Supermart, Inc. should be held liable for the damages caused to plaintiff. STATEMENT OF FACTS In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious disposition of this case, the following are the material, relevant and pertinent facts: 1. On May 11, 2010, Jonna Bueno (Bueno) together with her son, Ricky, went to respondent Gloria Supermart, Inc. (Gloria) to buy goods that they need at home. 2. While shopping, Ricky saw a small ball rolled along the aisle. He ran after the ball but slipped because of the wet section of the aisle. 3. Based on Bueno’s testimony, there was a puddle of liquid on the floor because of a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf. 4. She said that there was no sign that the floor was wet not was there any clerk to warn them about it. She, however, admitted that she heard someone who shouted and cautioned her son of the wet floor. 5. On the contrary, Rene Castro (Castro), the Supervisor of the supermarket was at the next aisle when the incident happened. He testified that from the position of Ricky, after he slipped, it can be inferred that he bumped into the shelf with shyrup bottles and knocked down some of them. 6. Thereafter, Ricky was rushed to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on his right wrist to restore the position of a fractured bone. It took him six (6) weeks to recover.
Gloria Supermart. 840 for medical expenses and P5. Bueno claims that she spent P22.R. the Supreme Court ruled that “an accident is an unforeseen event which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. Gloria cannot claim that the cause of the injury was an accident or an unforeseen event. foresee the harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the cause actually pursued?” Here. But there was none.” On the other hand. 1999. G. there is no grocery clerk in the aisle. However. Court of Appeals. The injury could have been lessened if Bueno and her son exercised proper care. 2005.000 for toys to distract Ricky from the pain he suffered. . Court of Appeals. She also claims that she mentally suffered because of worrying about her son. G.7. There should be an employee who should immediately clean wet floors to prevent accidents. Its business caters to the needs of the family. Gloria knows that there are many people going in and out of their store. ARGUMENTS 1. No. ISSUES 1. 3. this complaint for damages. they can reasonably expect parents to bring their children. at the time of the accident. Whether or not Bueno is entitled to actual and moral damages resulting from the accident. in Philippine National Construction Corporation v.” In addition. December 21. 159270. No. 8. Inc. Whether or not Gloria can be held liable for the physical injuries suffered by Ricky when he slipped due to the wet floor. Whether or not Gloria exercised proper diligence in ensuring the safety of its customers. Since they are expecting many customers including children Gloria should have deployed one personnel for each aisle to oversee and ensure the safety of the customers. Hence. Gloria contends that the injuries suffered by Ricky was caused by an accident which is beyond its control.’s management and employees did not exercise the proper diligence in ensuring the safety of its cusotmers. in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed. August 22. 2. 4. Whether or not the proximate cause of the accident is the gross negligence of Gloria’s management and employees. the Court provides that the test to determine whether a person is doing a negligent act is: “would a prudent man. the incident could be avoided. 129792. If there is a grocery clerk. In Jarco Marketing v. Hence. negligence is defined as “omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.R.
They have management and control over their personnel who could have exercised proper diligence in preventing the accident. The act of Bueno in letting her child go after the ball is not sufficient intervening cause which could have negated Gloria’s liability. proximate cause is “that cause. Bearing this in mind.Further in the place of the incident. 2011] Shouting at someone is not sufficient means of informing a person of an impending danger. (Child Learning Center. However. unbroken by an efficient intervening cause. [Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN). The accident could not happen if Gloria provided for sufficient precautionary measures to avoid the incident. June 14. (b) and (c) the accident must not be due to voluntary act of the plaintiff. June 7. 2. In addition. 150920. In Ramos v. the Supervisor. No. G. the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be applied. in natural and continuous sequence.L. The failure of Gloria to provide the necessary precaution to avoid the accident is the proximate cause of the injury. G. Therefore. . and without which the result would not have occurred. the liability of Gloria is not negated. there was no sign to caution the customers about the wet floor. Inc. 2005) Here.O. the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be applied when the following requisites concur: (a) the accident was of such character as to warrant inference that it would not have happened except for defendant’s negligence. 184905. Gloria claims that the cause of the injury was accident and Bueno and her son contributed to the damage. Bueno admitted that someone shouted and warned her. 2009. August 28. Therefore. C. v. Mr. produces injury. admitted that accident happen about once a year in their premises (TSN. Gloria still failed to provide safety measures to prevent or lessen the accidents. Gloria is negligent because it did not provide for the necessary personnel to assist its customers. Here. No. applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor Gloria failed to exercise proper diligence.R. Although Mrs. the accident must be because of instrumentality under the control of defendant. Gloria failed to substantiate its claim.R. 2011). Realty Corporation. Tagorio. November 25. Clearly. the accident was not voluntary but due to the negligence of the management and its employees. which. Castro.
it cannot be excused from liability. In addition. no negligence can be imputed both to Bueno and her son. no contributory negligence is present. there being fault or negligence. In Article 2176 the New Civil Code (NCC). 4. Also. His testimony was merely a speculation. the cause of the injury was the gross negligence of the management and employees of Gloria. Sec. the direct and immediate cause of the injury can be imputed against Gloria and not Bueno. Mrs. x x x” Further Article 2180 of the NCC provides that: “[o]wners and managers of establishment or enterprise are likewise liable for damages caused by their employees x x x. PRAYER WHEREFORE.000 as damages. opinion of a witness is generally not admissible. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Mrs. All told. She could not have foreseen the wet floor. Gloria can be held liable for actual and moral damages for the neglect of its employees. Art. 3. it is provided that: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. Bueno is entitled to actual and moral damages. it is prayed unto this Honorable Court that judgment in favor of plaintiff be rendered. Gloria should be held liable for the injury caused to Ricky because one who caused damage to another is obliged to pay for the damage caused.Therefore. 2214 provides that contributory negligence tempers the award for damages. Bueno presented evidence of the expenses she incurred in the medication of her son. She also proved that she experience moral damages. Sgd . Gloria should pay her the amount of P500. Under Rule 130. Here. The act of Bueno before and after the accident shows that she did not cause the injury. Gloria should pay her the amount prayed for. Castro did not see the accident first hand. 48 of the Rules of Court.” Here. Hence. The opinion of Castro that Ricky bumped into the shelf cannot be used to prove that Ricky is negligent. Absent any evidence showing that Gloria observe due diligence to prevent damage. Thus. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Counsel for Plaintiff IBP No. MCLE Compliance Address Copy furnished: Counsel for Defendant Address . PTR No. Roll No.
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.