Team Code – TC 15

RGNUL FRESHER’S MOOT COURT, 2018

IN THE CIVIL SUIT NO. ___/____ Of 2018

Before
THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF THEOG

MRS. MOLLY.................................................................... PLAINTIFF

v.
UNION OF CYBERTRON & MR. SENTINEL................DEFENDANT

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-

 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... iv
CASES REFERRED: .................................................................................................................... iv
BOOKS REFERRED .................................................................................................................... v
WEBSITES REFERRED ................................................................................................................ v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... vii
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................... i
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. ii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1
1. CYBERTRON IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS & THUS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ............................ 1
1) a. That Decepticon comes under the ambit of state under art.12 ........................................ 1
8) b. That the State is vicariously liable for actions of Decepticon............................................ 2
14) c. That Decepticon was negligent on its part .................................................................... 3
22) d. That Cybertron is strictly liable ..................................................................................... 5
34) e. That the defence of statutory authority is not available .............................................. 7
2. MR. SENTINEL IS NEGLIGENT IN PERFORMING HIS ACTIONS & TIME DELAY CAUSED IN RESCUING ALLAN
&THUS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION ...................................................................................... 8
39) a. That Mr. Sentinel created ‘duty to rescue’ once he initiated the rescue ..................... 8
44) b. That Mr. Sentinel was negligent in his conduct. ........................................................... 9
47) c. That his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury caused ............................ 10
PRAYER .......................................................................................................................... 12

i
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPLANATIONS

HC HIGH COURT

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

SC SUPREME COURT

CPC CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Hon’ble HONOURABLE

PSU PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING

Ed. EDITION

No. NUMBER

Ltd. LIMITED

v. VERSUS

Const. CONSTITUTION

Vol. VOLUME

ii
RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

b/w BETWEEN

AP ANDHRA PRADESH

MP MADHYA PRADESH

SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

Art. ARTICLE

Nicd NICKEL CADMIUM

NiMH NICKEL METAL HYDRIDE

Co. COMPANY

UOI UNION OF INDIA

Sec. SECTION

iii
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:

1. Ajay hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , 1981 AIR 48

2. Rajasthan Electricity Board Jaipur v. Mohanlal , (1967) 3 SCR 377
3. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvansh , 1975 SC 1331 , (1975) 1
SCC 421 ; (1975) 3 SCR 619
4. N Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) SC 2663 (India).
5. Peninsular & Oriental Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India, (1861) 5
Bom HCR (India).
6. Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965) SC 1039 (India).
7. Common Cause, (a registered society) v. UOI, (1999) SC 2979 (India)
8. State v. Devilal,(1970) MP 179 (India).
9. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Rama Krishna Reddy, (2000) SC 2083 (India).
10. Jacob Mathews v. state of Punjab & Anr., (2005) SC 3180 (India).
11. Donoghue v. Stevenson AC 526 (1932).
12. Mysore State Road Transport Corp. v. Albert Disa (1973) Mys 240 ( 242) (India)
13. Overseas tankship (U.K.) ltd. v. Morts dock and engineering co. ltd., (1961) AC ER
404: (1961) 2WLR 126
14. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Ors., (1996) SC 2111 (India).
15. Minerveeran v. T.B. Krishnamurty, (1966) Kar 172 (India).
16. Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868), UKHL 1
17. TC Balakrishna Menon v. T.R Subramaniam,(1968) Ker 151 (India).
18. Midwood and Co. Ldt. v. Manchester Corp. (1905) 2 KB 591.
19. UOI v. Sugra Bai, (1967) 70 Bom LR 212 SC (India).
20. Eckert v. Railway Co., 43 N. Y. 502
21. Frank v. United States, 250 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1957)
22. Chattanooga Light & Power Co. v. Hodges
23. Deming v. Storage Co., 90 Tenn. 353, 17 S. W. 99, 13 L. R. A. 518
.

iv
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Dr. Paranjape N.V., Law of Torts,3rd Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2016
2. Ranchhoddas Ratanlal & Thakore Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 25th Ed., Wadhwa &
Co., Nagpur, 2008
3. Rogers W.V.H., Winfield & Jolowicz Tort, 11th Ed., Sweet & Maxwell, South
Asia,2010
4. Kumar Narender, Key to Civil Court, 2nd Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co., New
Delhi, 2014
5. VN Shukla, Mahendra Pal Singh , Constitution Of India , 13th ED. , 2017, Thomson
Press (India) Ltd

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
6. HeinOnline, https://home.heinonline.org
7. Westlaw, https://login.westlawindia.com

v
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff approaches Hon’ble District Court, Theog, invoking Strict Liability of
Cybertron & Negligence of Mr. Sentinel, under Sec. 151 & 192 of CPC.
The plaintiffs most humbly submit before the jurisdiction of the present court & accept that it
has the power & authority to preside over the resent case.

1
15. Court in which suits to be instituted. – Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade
competent to try it.
2
19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. – Where a suit is for compensation for wrong
done to a person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within local limits of the jurisdiction of the one
court and the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

vi
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTUAL DESCRIPTION:

-CYBERTRON-

Cybertron is a country in Southeast Asia. It is an outcome of British India partition in 1947,

because of this, law of Cybertron are parimateria to that of Republic of India & decisions of
Indian court also have high persuasive value in Cybertronian system due to these similarities.

-DECEPTICON & ALL SPARK PROJECT-

Decepticon is a public sector undertaking controlled by government of Cybertron. It has two

departments, which work in isolation to each other. One deals with manufacturing of military
equipment for defence forces & second one which manufactures the equipment to be sold
worldwide. However Research Development Wing (RDW) of the Co. is used by both the
departments. Once RDW formulates a technology, the other two divisions then further work
on it to manufacture their respective equipment. The Co. was engaged in a project, All
Spark, a drone technology used for surveillance & planting IR cameras in the enemy
territory with having a anomalous range of 10 km radius. However the project was still under
RDW as for the testing of device. The decision was to be taken by the Co. after the successful
test operation of drone whether it should be solely given to defence forces of Cybertron of
sold to other countries as well.

-TEST DRIVE OF ALL SPARK PROJECT-.

The management first decided to test the drone its uninhabited restricted testing site in the
‘Tombs of Prime’ in the Theog district of the state of Gigantion in Cybertron. The test was
successful with showing no colours of defect. As the drone All Spark was specifically meant
for inhabitant area, so Co. decided to launch the All Spark drone towards a civilian area
adjacent to the testing site, without taking any further proper care & caution in concern of
civilian area. Because of this, the explosion in the battery of device was happened while
testing it in civilian area.

-THE ACCIDENT-

vii
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

As the device was launched on a low altitude with having explosion in its battery, resulting in
fire in Mrs. Molly’s apartment situated at the second floor in the civilian area adjacent to the
testing site where the drone was launched. When All Spark is being tested in this area, she
had gone at some nearby place, however her two children, Allan & Solly, were sleeping in
the apartment. When Mrs. Molly was returning home, she saw her apartment raging in fire &
rushed to the spot as she was demented in the worry of her children whom were struck amidst
fire but was sopped from entering the building by the people who had gathered.

-RESCUE OPERATION-

She cried for help to save her children. Two persons arrived at the place of accident, one was
an ordinary person, Mr. Sentinel who arrived first & immediately ran into the apartment to
start the rescue operation, seeing him go inside the second person Mr. Optimus Prime who
was an army soldier & he was specifically trained to h&le. However after entering the
apartment Mr. Sentinel got scared & came back without rescuing the children. Because of his
act, there was occurrence of time delay in rescuing the children by Mr. Optimus Prime. Due
to this one of the child, Allan got severely injured by the fire. Mr. Optimus Prime also
revealed that had it been possible for him to enter the building a bit earlier, Allan could also
have been rescued.

-THE DISPUTE-

Mrs. Molly filed a civil suit in the District Court against the country Cybertron that the
country is strictly liable for its actions & by claiming the compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for the
damage occur during the accident. & she also sued Mr. Sentinel for his negligence & the time
delay caused in rescuing Allan by claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injury of
Allan & also for the further agony suffered by her during the accident.

viii
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1:
WHETHER CYBERTRON IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR ITS ACTION?

ISSUE 2:
WHETHER MR. SENTINEL IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IN RESCUING ALLAN &
TIME DELAY CAUSED IN RESCUING?

i
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

In an attempt to satisfy the Hon’ble Court, the counsels on behalf of the plaintiff presents the
following arguments:

1. That Cybertron is strictly liable for its actions

The Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff humbly submits that Cybertron is strictly liable for
the activities carried out by it because:

Firstly, Decepticon comes under the ambit of state under Art.12

Secondly, Cybertron is vicariously liable for actions of PSU.

Thirdly, the PSU is negligent in its actions

Fourthly, Cybertron is strictly liable.

Fifthly, Defence of statutory authority is not available.

2. That Mr. Sentinel is liable for negligence & time delay caused in rescuing Allan

It is humbly submitted that Mr. Sentinel is liable because:

Firstly, Mr. Sentinel has duty to rescue once he initiated the rescue.

Secondly, Mr. Sentinel was negligent in his conduct.

Thirdly, Negligence of Sentinel was the proximate cause of the injury caused.

ii
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. CYBERTRON IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS & THUS LIABLE TO PAY
COMPENSATION

1) a. That Decepticon comes under the ambit of state under art.12

2) It is humbly submitted that Decepticon comes under the ambit of state under Art. 12
of the const. The plaintiff is appearing in Hon’ble District Court under Art300 (1) of
the Const. of Cybertron challenging that Decepticon can be sued as a state.

3) Art.300(1)3 is as follows:
“The govt. Of India may sue or be sued by the name of Union of India
and the Government of a state may sue or be sued by the name of state
and may, subject to any provision which may be made by Act of
Parliament or of the Legislature of such state enacted by virtue of
powers conferred by this const. sue or be sued in relation to their
respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and
corresponding provinces or the corresponding Indian states might
have sued or been sued if this constitution has not been enacted.”

4) The authorities which are regarded as ‘state’ under Art. 12 can be issued under article
300(1) of the Const. Decepticon, a public sector undertaking, controlled by the
government of Cybertron can be called a state in the form of ‘any other authority’. As
a PSU the company fulfills the criteria laid down in the landmark case of Ajay hasia
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,4 and hence qualifies as a state for the consideration of
Art.12

5) In the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal5, the SC for
the need of the day noticing the socio economic policy of the country thought it fit to
expand the definition of term ‘other authorities’ to include bodies other than statutory
bodies.

3
Indian Const. Art 300(1)
4
Ajay hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , 1981 AIR 48
5
Rajasthan Electricity Board Jaipur v. Mohanlal , (1967) 3 SCR 377

1
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

6) The SC in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvansh6 pointed out that
the expression of ‘other authorities’ was wide enough to include within it every
authority created by the statute and functioning within the territory of Cybertron are
under the control of the Government of Cybertron.

7) Therefore, it can be concluded that PSU comes under the ambit of state and the state
can be sued.

8) b. That the State is vicariously liable for actions of Decepticon

9) It is established that the PSU is controlled by the state. 7 The Earlier established
position was that the state is liable for the non – sovereign functions of its employees.
If the govt. controlled agency does anything in the course of employment, it (state) is
not liable because of sovereign immunity. Of late, Supreme Court has held that as
regards the immunity of State on the ground of sovereign function, the traditional
concept of sovereignty has undergone a considerable change in modern times and the
line of distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign power no longer survives. in
modern sense, there is no distinction b/w sovereign and non-sovereign powers of
state, the sovereignty lies with people8.
10) In Common cause, (a registered society) v. UOI, the SC again examined the whole
doctrine & rejected the sovereign immunity rule. The Court in this case held that,
“ the rule of strict liability as laid down in P. & O. Steam Navigation
case9 is very outmoded. It said that in modern times when the state
activities have been considerably increased it is very difficult to draw
line b/w sovereign & non sovereign functions. The increased activities
of state made a deep impression on the facets of citizen’s life, &
therefore the liability of the state must be co-extensive with modern

6
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvansh , 1975 SC 1331 , (1975) 1 SCC 421 ; (1975) 3 SCR
619
7
Moot proposition, ¶2.
8
N Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1994) SC 2663 (India).
9
Peninsular & Oriental Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India, (1861) 5 Bom HCR (India).

2
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

concept of welfare state. The state must be liable for all tortuous acts
of its employees, whether done in exercise of sovereign or non-
sovereign powers. In the process of judicial interpretation Kasturilal’s
case10 has paled into insignificance & has no longer binding value.”11
11) Moreover, it was not clear as to whether this technology was to be solely used by
defence forces of Cybertron or it would be sold to other countries as well.a12 That is,
there was a possibility that the techonology could be used by the state for export
purposes, which would not fall under the category of sovereign functions.
12) It is also humbly submitted that state is vicariously liable for the commercial activities
of PSU. It was held that where state is running an industry, commercial, business,
transport, electricity or gas supply in a public sector it shall be vicariously liable for
the tortious act of the employees working in such public sector
undertakings.13Therefore, it is concluded that state is vicariously liable for the actions
of Cybertron.
13) It was held that personal liberty should be given supremacy over sovereign
immunity.14

14) c. That Decepticon was negligent on its part

15) It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that during the test of the drone,
Decepticon is negligent on its part as it fulfils all the essentials which are required for
a negligent act.
16) In Jacob Mathews v. state of Punjab & Anr.15,, the essentials of Negligence were laid
down. The court in the case expressed that,,
“Negligence is breach of duty caused by the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affair would do or doing
something which a prudent & reasonable man would not do. Actionable
negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill

10
Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965) SC 1039 (India).
11
Common Cause, (a registered society) v. UOI, (1999) SC 2979 (India).
12
Moot proposition, ¶3.
13
State v. Devilal,(1970) MP 179 (India).
14
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Rama Krishna Reddy, (2000) SC 2083 (India).
15
(2005) SC 3180 (India).

3
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing

ordinary care & skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury
to his person or property.”
The judgment of this case reflects three main essentials of negligence under tortuous
liability that are: a legal duty to exercise on due part of defendant; breach of the said
duty; & consequential damages.

i. That Decepticon owes a legal duty on its part

17) Duty is the core ingredient of the tort of negligence, a person may be held liable under
negligence only if he owes a legal duty towards the plaintiff.16 A person must take
reasonable care to avoid acts omissions which he can reasonably foresee are likely to
injure the plaintiff.17 Herein the PSU, Decepticon have not taken reasonable care in
context of launching the drone in civilian area. Degree of care required varies with the
situation & circumstances of the case, the care & precautions that the defendant is
expected to take depends on the risk involved in the case.18The imminent danger
theory must be viewed keeping at the back of the mind the act or conduct creating the
danger to the plaintiff or the class of people to which the defendant belong. The
defendant also in given circumstances must owe a special responsibility or proximity
imposing foreseeable duty to care to safeguard the plaintiff from the danger or to
prevent it from happening.19

18) Therefore there must exist some proximity of relationship, foreseeability of danger &
duty of care to be performed by the defendant to avoid the accident which caused
damage to Mrs. Molly’s apartment & have created massive destruction at that place
which leads to the injury of Mrs. Molly’s child, Allan. Hence, it is concluded that
Decepticon owes a legal duty on its part.

16
Dr. Paranjape N.V., Law of Torts,3rd Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2016.
17
Donoghue v. Stevenson AC 526 (1932).
18
Mysore State Road Transport Corp. v. Albert Disa (1973) Mys 240 ( 242) (India).
19
Overseas tankship (U.K.) ltd. v. Morts dock and engineering co. ltd., (1961) AC ER 404: (1961) 2 WLR 126.

4
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

ii. That there is breach of the said duty

19) The Counsell submits that the plaintiff is not only required to show that defendant
owed a duty of care towards him but having done so he has also to prove that the
defendant committed breach of that duty.
20) Negligence as a tort is breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a
reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent & reasonable man
would not do.20 As Decepticon had not taken any proper care & caution before
launching the device in civilian area. There were no repeated tests done in regards of
inhabited area & also there was no proper inspection of the device, because of this the
battery exploded at the time of test. Therefore, it is concluded that there was breach of
duty of care towards civilians.

iii. That there is consequential damage

21) It is submitted that Decepticon was liable, as there was negligence on their part. They
tested the device on a low altitude21. Negligence as a breach of duty to take care
resulting in damage to one person or property.22 As the property of Mrs. Molly was
damaged & her child was also injured. Hence, it proves that there was consequential
damage happened to Mrs. Molly.

22) d. That Cybertron is strictly liable

23) It is duly contended that Cybertron is strictly liable as it fulfils all the essentials of
strict liability. Strict liability is applicable when there is non-natural use of land from
which the thing escaped & caused damage.23
24) Decepticon initially dealt with the hazardous object i.e. there was non- natural use of
land. The Drone whose battery is highly dangerous i.e. if exploded can become a
threat to life & property of person. Also the hazardous test was done in a residential
area which itself is a non-natural use of land.
25) The batteries of a drone are lithium polymer batteries which are safer than NiCd &
NiMH batteries but, if not used properly with care & caution i.e. if charged,

20
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Ors., (1996) SC 2111 (India).
21
Moot proposition, ¶5.
22
Minerveeran v. T.B. Krishnamurty, (1966) Kar 172 (India).
23
Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868), UKHL 1.

5
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

discharged, stored, maintained or handled improperly, they can become extremely

dangerous.
26) Moreover, the drone escaped & caused mischief. Hence, it is concluded that the
battery of the drone was manhandled which led to injury of Allan.

i. That there is Non-Natural Use of land

27) It was held in TC Balakrishna Menon v. T.R Subramaniam that it was a hazardous
adventure to which the rule of strict liability could be extended. 24 In the present case
the battery of the drone is extremely hazardous. Therefore, it is concluded that it was
a non-natural use of land.

ii. That there is Escape

28) It is humbly submitted that there is escape of drone. Escape is defined as “escape
from a place where defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is
outside his occupation or control “25.
29) Due to the negligence of PSU, the drone All Spark escaped from the defendant’s
control & damaged the property of Mrs. Molly. Hence, it is concluded that there was
escape in the present case.

iii. That there is Mischief

30) It is contended that the essential of mischief is fulfilled in the present case. Mischief is
that the resultant damage has to be proved by the plaintiff after showing no natural
user & escape of the thing from defendants l& or premises.26

31) Moreover, Midwood & Co Ltd. v. Manchester Corp.27 the Defendant Corporation had
laid down electric cables underneath the highway which got burst all of a sudden
causing fire resulting in Mischief to plaintiff property. The defendant was held liable
in this case.

24
TC Balakrishna Menon v. T.R Subramaniam,(1968) Ker 151 (India).
25
Rogers W.V.H., Winfield & Jolowicz Tort, 11th Ed., Sweet & Maxwell, South Asia,2010
26
Dr. Paranjape N.V., Law of Torts,3rd Ed., Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2016.
27
Midwood and Co. Ldt. v. Manchester Corp. (1905) 2 KB 591.

6
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

32) In the present case the property of Mrs. Molly was damaged & her child was also
injured. Hence, it is concluded that in the instant case drone caused mischief to
property of Mrs. Molly & injured her child.

33) Therefore, it is concluded that Cybertron is strictly liable.

34) e. That the defence of statutory authority is not available

35) It is contended that the defence of statutory authority is not available to the defendants
as the PSU was negligent in its actions & did not take reasonable care. The PSU was
also working for commercial purposes which states that the defence of Statutory
Authority cannot be taken.
36) It is humbly submitted that the HC of Madhya Pradesh considered the entire Law
relating to sovereign immunity of the state in laid down the following principle:
“Where state is running an industry, commercial, business, transport,
electricity or gas supply in a public sector it shall be vicariously liable
for the tortious act of the employees working in such public sector
undertakings.”28
37) Moreover, ‘every act which is necessary for the discharge of a sovereign function
can’t be said to involve an exercise of a sovereign power’29.Therefore, selling the
technology to other countries is not involved in sovereign function i.e. PSU works for
commercial purpose.
38) In Smith v. London & South Western Railway co30., the plaintiff was awarded
damages as there was negligence on the part of defendants.
In the instant case, the defendants were negligent in their actions. Hence, the defence of
statutory authority cannot be taken.

28
supra note 6.
29
UOI v. Sugra Bai, (1967) 70 Bom LR 212 SC (India).
30
Smith v. London & South Western Railway co, (1870-71) LR 6 CP 14

7
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

2. MR. SENTINEL IS NEGLIGENT IN PERFORMING HIS ACTIONS & TIME DELAY CAUSED IN
RESCUING ALLAN &THUS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION

39) a. That Mr. Sentinel created ‘duty to rescue’ once he initiated the rescue

40) It is duly contented that to make Mr. Sentinel liable for the tort of negligence, it
becomes necessary to show, that, he carried out or failed to perform the duty which he
voluntarily undertook to perform.

41) It is a basic tenet of tort law that although an individual generally has
no duty to rescue, once voluntarily undertaken, a rescue must not be performed
negligently.
“Although a man has a perfect right to stand by & see his neighbor's
property destroyed, or ... to watch his neighbor’s perish for want of his
help, yet if he once intermeddles he no longer has the same freedom....
The same reasoning applies to civil liability. A carpenter need not go to
work upon another man's house at all, but if he accepts the other's
confidence & intermeddles, he cannot stop at will & leave the roof open
to the weather. ... The immediate occasion of the damage ... may have
been a mere omission letting in the operation of natural forces. But if
you connect it ... with the previous dealings, you have a course of action
& conduct which, taken as a whole, has caused or occasioned the
harm.”31
42) In the instant case, Mr. Sentinel on his own undertook the responsibility to rescue
Allan. He voluntarily entered the apartment to save the children from the burning
apartment. Once he initiated the rescue, it was his duty to do all that was expected of a
prudent man in such a situation. On the contrary, Mr. Sentinel on entering the
apartment, didn’t even try rescuing the children. He just left the apartment since he
was ‘scared’32. This act amounts to omission of an act which was expected of any
rationale man in a similar situation.

31
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1963), p. 145
32
Moot proposition, ⁋6

8
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

43) Thereby, applying the above principle to the present case, it is humbly contended that
the moment Mr. Sentinel volunteered to rescue the children and thereupon entered the
apartment, a duty to care was imposed on him in eyes of law. He, by not taking due
care committed a breach of that duty.

44) b. That Mr. Sentinel was negligent in his conduct.

45) It is duly contented that Mr. Sentinel is liable for negligence as in the Eckert v.
Railway Co33, it was held that
“‘the law has so high a regard for human life that it will not impute
negligence to an effort to preserve it, unless made under circumstances
constituting rashness in the judgment of prudent persons."
In the present scenario, Mr. Sentinel was careless & heedless in his conduct as he got
inside the apartment without any safety equipment & back up. Moreover, he was not
at all experienced for any such activity. He acted too quickly without considering the
risks & consequences for his action. He committed a breach of the said duty.
46) In Frank v. United States34, the court considered the scope of the Coast Guard's
liability for a failed rescue attempt, which was voluntarily undertaken.
Judge Hastie wrote for the court that, based on the responsibilities of
private salvors, the government might be liable either if the injured
person relies on “some representation about the voluntary service” or
if the attempted rescue “is so conducted that it affirmatively injures the
one in distress or worsens his positions (sic).” Since the Restatement
formulation of the Good Samaritan doctrine generally prescribes the
circumstances of private liability & reflects accepted principles of duty
& tort liability, we do not think that the Restatement test should be
specially ltd. when the government is involved.35

33
Eckert v. Long Island R. Co., 43 N.Y. 502, 1871 N.Y. LEXIS 21 (N.Y. 1871).
34
Frank v. United States, 250 F.2d 178 (3d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 962, 78 S.Ct. 1000, 2 L.Ed.2d
1069 (1958)
35
ibid

9
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

In this case Mr. Sentinel, though carried the rescue voluntarily, and thus created a
duty to rescue. Now, it was for him to take all the reasonable care and precaution so
as to fulfill his duty (which he himself created) towards the children. But, he did not
take any precautionary device with him and negligently entered the apartment. Once
there, he did not even attempt rescuing the children and came out saying that he got
‘scared’. This omission on Mr. Sentinel’s part amounts to breach of duty which he
himself created.

47) c. That his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury caused

48) It is humbly submitted that, in Chattanooga Light & Power Co. v. Hodges36, the SC
held that negligence must be proximate cause of injury. Mr. Sentinel caused the delay
in rescue which was a proximate cause for the injury of Allan. Had Mr. Sentinel not
taken such a negligent step, the injury to Allan could be prevented. So, it can be
inferred that injury to Allan is a consequence of Mr. Sentinel’s action.

49) The definition of ‘proximate cause’ was given by the court in Deming v. Storage
Co.37, which justifies this contention, the court said:

“The proximate cause of an injury may, in general, be stated to be that

act or omission which immediately causes or fails to prevent the
injury; an act or omission occurring or concurring with another,
which, had it not happened, the injury would not have been inflicted.”
That a wrongdoer is liable not only for the injury which immediately results from his
act, but for such consequential injuries as, according to the common experience of
man, were likely to result.
50) In the present case, injury to Allan was the result of Mr. Sentinel’s negligence. Had
Mr. Sentinel not entered the apartment, Mr. Optimus could have got enough time and
he would have been successful in rescuing both the children uninjured. This is proven

36
Chattanooga Light & Power Co. v. Hodges, Nov. 28, 1902, 60 L.R.A. 459, Supreme Court of Tennessee.
37
Deming v. Storage Co., 90 Tenn. 353, 17 S. W. 99, 13 L. R. A. 518

10
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

by the Mr. Optimus’s statement from the proposition i.e., “Mr. Optimus also revealed
that had it been possible for him to enter the building a bit earlier, Allan could also
have been rescued unharmed.”38 Therefore, it is humbly pleaded that negligence on
Mr. Sentinel’s part was the cause of injury caused to Allan.

51) In the light of the arguments advanced & authorities cited, it is humbly submitted that
the Cybertron is strictly liable for their actions & Mr. Sentinel is liable for negligence
& time delay caused in rescuing Allan & both the parties should pay compensation of
Rs. 20 lakhs & Rs.2 lakhs respectively.

38
Moot proposition, ⁋6.

11
 RGNUL FRESHER’S INTRA MOOT COURT, 2018

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced & authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant a compensation of Rs. 22 lakhs to
Ms. Molly & adjudge & declare:

1. That Cybertron is strictly liable for its actions.

2. That Mr. Sentinel is liable for negligence & time delay in rescuing Allan.

In the alternative, pass any other relief which the court may deem fit & proper.

The plaintiff shall duty bound forever humbly pray.

All of which is humbly submitted by

Counsels on behalf of the Plaintiff

12