It is undisputed that Biboy broke his wrist when while he was chasing the ball, he slipped

and fell on the wet floor that was of Royal Supermarket’s premises. It is submitted that Biboy
would not have fallen and broke his wrist if not for the wet floor.
A question may be posed as whether, is his act of slipping on the floor an accident or its
presence is an act of negligence that may be attributed to defendant, Royal Supermarket.
An accident pertains “to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to
the defendant. On the other hand, negligence is 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 do.” (Jarco Marketing
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, Dec. 21, 1999)
Applying the law to the present case, it is clear that Biboy’s injuries were not caused by
accident. As earlier mentioned, Biboy broke his wrist because he slipped and fell due to the wet
floor or the liquid that was said to be seeping from a bottle located on the supermarket shelves.
Clearly, the liquid should not have been on the floor as common sense would indicate that it posed
a threat to the supermarket’s customers and even to their employees.
The mere presence of the liquid which constituted the wet floor already negates defendant
Royal Supermarket’s claim that it exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe. Failure to
take the proper precautions in guarding against such a mishap is an act of negligence on the part of
Royal Supermarket.
The defendant, Royal Supermarket raised the case of Rosemarie Bintudan vs The
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 211937 in defining negligence as:
“…the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by these consideration
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do. Stated otherwise, negligence is wanted of care
required by circumstances.”
Defendant, Royal Supermarket thus argues that negligence is a comparative concept which
varies on the circumstances attendant to each case and that the plaintiff has failed to establish
sufficient evidence of such negligence.
This argument should not be given merit. According to jurisprudence on the case of Jarco
Marketing Corporation v Court of Appeals, “…negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by that consideration which ordinarily regulates the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
In the present case, there was failure of the respondent to clear the area of items that
Defendant, Royal Supermarket could have been more vigilant through instructing their
employees in patrolling the aisles for spills or the presence of similar hazards. Defendant failed the
test to determine whether a person is negligent that was laid out by the Supreme Court in the case
of Philippine National Construction v. CA (G.R. No. 159270, Aug. 22, 2005). The test in that case
requires a person to act as a prudent man in a similar position and fails to take the proper
precautions against foreseeable harm. Signs and warning devices which would inform shoppers
that a hazard was present were noticeably absent. This oversight evidences even the want of
ordinary care on the part of defendant, Royal Supermarket.