ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE AND THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO

DAMAGES?

The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff contends that the defendant is liable for negligence and therefore
the plaintiff is entitled to damages. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff which was
breached as defendant failed to take reasonable care towards the duty and the plaintiff suffered
damage consequently.

ISSUE 2:WHEATHER THE AGREEMENT PURELY COMMERCIAL IN NATURE?

No Excel group owe a duty of care towards the participating contestant and to provide proper
accommodation facilities and to constantly examine or monitor participating contestant health and to
provide vaccine against local diseases

ISSUE 3: WHEATHER THE DEFENDANT TAKE THE DEFENSE OF Vis Major?

No because it can be forseable as it is a comman disease in the island and the room was not properly
fumigated

ISSUE 4: WHEATHER PLANTIF WAS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENT ?

NO as she has no idea about the local disease and the medical team arrived late was not his fault .

The doctrine of contributory negligence is based on the maxim “injure non remota causa sed proxima
spectator” which means that the law takes into consideration only the proximate cause and not the
remote one.The negligence and default of the plaintiff was in any degree the proximate cause of the
damage, so he could not recover.1

1
R.L. Anand, Law of Torts, p. 730.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE AND THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO
DAMAGES?

The counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble Court that the defendant is liable for negligence and
therefore the plaintiff is entitled to damages. In Minor Veeran v. T.V. Krishnamorty2 , it has been
observed that negligence involves - The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (A); the
defendant made a breach of that duty (B); the Plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof
(C). Also, the Rule of Last Opportunity (D).

The Defendant owed a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the defendant is a highly reputed private limited
company which is engaged in organizing reality TV shows must had been aware of the risk of the
unhabited island and the risks associated with it and should have provided proper accomadation
facilities and the the room should have been properly fumigated to avoid such risks

BREACH

The act of excel not taking adequate precaution and safe guard is clear case of breach of duty as
the viral infection was clearly very comman in paradise island

DAMAGE

Resulted in huge loss to laura which she has quantified at Rs 1 Cr damage

2
AIR 1966 Ker 172