MOOT COURT PROBLEM CASE

In the Court of Civil Appeals Division

Shantakumar v. BreakingBad Ltd

Republic of Rashtra (referred to as Rashtra from here on) is a country located in Southern Asia. It has 29
states and 9 Union Territories with a federal governing structure of the government and a single
integrated system of judiciary. It has a very comprehensive legal system based on the English
Common Law. There are multiple Multi-National corporations, private & public enterprises as
well as several small & medium enterprises, spanning over various industries.

BreakingBad Ltd (BrBa Ltd) is one such large Rashtra based Multi-national Company engaged in the
production, storage and distribution of dangerous chemicals used to manufacture fertilisers. It
occupies a factory site in the state of Masalapur. The company has won many awards for the
care it takes in training staff to handle such chemicals. Anxious not to lose valuable expertise, it
offers retired ex-employees the opportunity to return on a part-time basis to help with training
new staff. The ex-employees are allowed to retain their protective clothing for a small fee and
their names are kept by the company on a register of those willing to help.

In March, BreakingBad Ltd was faced with a severe shortage of workers due to holidays and a flu
epidemic was just beginning to engulf the entire world. Concerned about the safety implications
of being short staffed and reluctant to close the plant and lay off workers just before the
scorching summer which also happens to be a vacation season, the company took the following
steps:
Letters were sent to all retired staff living within 50 miles of the factory asking them to work part-time
over the Summer holiday period. The staff were to sign a fixed-term agreement under which
they are designated "part-time labour only contractors" and are paid a lump sum based on hours
worked plus a Rs.2000 Summer bonus. They were under no compulsion to work any set hours
but would be called in as and when required. 10 ex-employees, including Dinesh Lal and Suresh
agreed to resume work on these terms.

The following events occur when the new staff begin work:

Karen, BreakingBad Ltd’s on site manager, after checking the work records of all the new employees
requires Dinesh and Suresh to form a work details and fill a vat with the nitrogen compounds,
which form the basis of fertilisers. Karen tells the workers to use the small loading crane rather
than the large crane because although the job will take longer, the small crane is more
manoeuvrable in the small space and there is less likelihood of accidents. After Karen departs,
Dinesh who has 20 years of experience working for BreakingBad insists on using the large crane.
In the process of loading the vat, the crane, due to the negligence of the crane driver and the
other worker who was directing its operation, hits the side of the vat causing a spark that ignites
the mixture. The workers were unscathed but an office worker, Shantakumar, was seriously
injured by flying debris.

This problem is taken from the Weekly Law Reports Competition 2001, was set by David Bray of the University of Essex and is provided courtesy of ICLR. However, some contents have
been altered to fit circumstances.
Shantakumar took action against BrBa Ltd. and filed a civil suit for damages at the High Court (which, in
Rashtra, has original jurisdiction of civil suits) of Masalapur. He alleged that Dinesh Lal acted
negligently and also that BrBa Ltd. was vicariously liable for his acts.
Dinesh Lal in his pleadings denied the allegations of negligence filed by Mr. Shantajumar and claimed that
the event which occurred was not of foreseeable nature. At the same time, BrBa Ltd. argued that
they cannot be held vicariously liable because both Dinesh and Suresh weren’t permanent
employees of the Company and that they were acting beyond the scope of employment.
At the trials, the judge of the High Court of Masalapur decided in favour of the Plaintiff and held in
awarding damages to Shantakumar that:
1. Dinesh Lal and Suresh were employees under a fixed term agreement of BrBa Ltd and thus BrBa Ltd
could be vicariously liable for their actions.
2. In disobeying Karen’s direct instructions Dinesh and Suresh were not acting on a folly of their own and
were still acting in the course of their employment.

BreakingBad Ltd., the appellants unsatisfied with the judgement filed for appeal in the Supreme Court at
Dubli (the capital of Rashtra) on the following grounds:
1. Dinesh and Suresh were not employees of BreakingBad Ltd. but independent contractors. As such
BreakingBad Ltd. could not be held vicariously liable for their actions.
2. In disobeying Karen’s direct instructions Dinesh and Suresh put themselves outside the course of their
employment thus BreakingBad Ltd. could not be liable for their actions.
Both the sides have employed legal Counsels to argue their case. The Supreme Court has also additionally
advised the Counsels that pleading for contributory negligence will result in futile discourse in
the courtroom and may not be entertained.

(All characters, institutions/organizations and events in this moot problem are entirely fictional, and any resemblance
thereof to any person, institution or event is purely coincidental.)

This problem is taken from the Weekly Law Reports Competition 2001, was set by David Bray of the University of Essex and is provided courtesy of ICLR. However, some contents have
been altered to fit circumstances.
This problem is taken from the Weekly Law Reports Competition 2001, was set by David Bray of the University of Essex and is provided courtesy of ICLR. However, some contents have
been altered to fit circumstances.