Trial Memorandum - Bueno v GSI

ANGELICA MENESES MENESES Legal Writing

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Gloria Supermart, Inc., by counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum as follows:

Statement of the Case

Jonna Bueno (Jonna) (Jonna) filed an action action for damages damages of 500,000 500,000 PHP against Gloria Supermart, Inc. (GSI) before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the physical injuries of her son, Ricky, suffered at the defendant’s supermarket, for the medical expenses and the emotional anguish that it brought to him and his mother.

Statement of the Facts

1. Plaintiff Jonna Bueno testified that at approximately 10AM on May 11, 2010, she and her five-year-old son, Ricky, were shopping for groceries at Gloria Supermart.

2. In her account of the sequence of events, Jonna stated that a small ball rolled along the aisle, and Ricky, as a child would, chased the movi moving ng obje object ct.. As per per her her state stateme ment nt,, after after her her son son trav travel eled ed some some distance from where she stood, Jonna witnessed him slipping on the aisle aisle’s ’s wet wet floor floor and and crash crashin ing g down down with with a heav heavy y bang bang.. Rick Ricky y then then shrieked from pain in his right wrist, which he used to stop his fall.

3. She testified that she saw a puddle on the floor where Ricky was was situ situate ated. d. She She claim claimed ed that that the the liqu liquid id form formin ing g the the pudd puddle le was was seeping out from a leaking bottle in a nearby shelf.

4. Jonna then brought Ricky to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital. Here, Ricky received diagnosis and treatment for a wrist fracture. He stayed overnight at the medical facility and recovered in six weeks.

5. During this span of time, Jonna and her husband spent 22,840 PHP in medic medical al expens expenses, es, includ including ing doctor doctor’s ’s fee, fee, hospit hospitali alizat zation ion,, and medicine. She also incurred expenses of approximately 5,000 PHP for toys that were used to distract Ricky from the pain he suffered. Her son experienced great discomfort and depression, while she herself claims to have suffered from mental stress.


6. At the time of the incident, Defendant Witness Rene Castro, supermarket supervisor for Gloria Supermart, was also at the store. He was placing new stocks of noodles on their respective shelves. When he heard the commotion one aisle away, he dropped his task and rushed to the scene.

7. He, too, saw a puddle on the floor where the child lay. Contrary to Jonna’s testimony, however, he asserts that the puddle was from the items that had fallen from a nearby shelf. These items included one glass bottle that broke and spilled its contents onto the floor.

8. Castro then carried Ricky to his mother’s car and accompanied mother and child to the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital.

Issues

The issues issues to be resolve resolved d are the followi following. ng.

1. Whether Whether or not the managem management ent and employe employees es of GSI displayed displayed gross negligence in ensuring the safety of their customers within their premises 2. Whet Whethe herr or not not GSI GSI is liab liable le for for dam damages ages resul resulte ted d from from Rick Ricky’s y’s physical injuries 3. Whether Whether or not the the plaintiff plaintiff is entitled entitled to recove recoverr damages damages

Discussions

I. GSI was not grossly negligent in keeping their store safe for customers.

To determine determine the existence existence of negligenc negligence e on the part of the defe defend ndan ant, t, it is essen ssenti tial al to firs firstt estab stabli lish sh how how the the law law defi define nes s negligence. The Supreme Court, in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeal Appeals, s, 32 321 1 SCRA SCRA 37 375, 5, reiter reiterate ated d the classic classic statement statement of what what negligence is. Negl Negliigenc gence e is the omissi issio on to do som somethin thing g which ich a reaso reasonab nable le man, guid guided ed by those those consi conside derat ratio ions ns whic which h ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. xxx


Jonna contends contends that supermarket supermarket managemen managementt and staff must be held responsible for negligence, as they should have been alert of the nuisances they maintained. They argue that they are at fault for failing to clear the area of items that draw children away from their parents, like the loose ball that rolled down the aisle, and hazards that could jeopardize jeopardize the safety safety of the customers, customers, such as the puddle on the floor from carelessly spilled liquids.

It follows that the indicator of negligence in the case at bar is the defendant’s maintenance of nuisances.

Arti Articl cle e 69 694 4 of the the Civi Civill Code Code defi define nes s a nuis nuisan ance ce as an act, act, omission, omission, establishm establishment, ent, business, business, condition condition of property, property, or anything anything else that, for one, injures or endangers the health or safety of others. In Hida Hidalgo lgo Ente Enterp rpri rise ses, s, Inc. Inc. v. Balan Balanda dan, n, et al, al, 91 Ph Phii 48 488, 8, attr attrac acti tive ve nuisances were defined as dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play. However, nuisances are considered as such if maintained with the absence of the exercise of ordinary care.

In the the prese present nt case case,, neit neithe herr the the ball ball nor nor the the pudd puddle le coul could d be consi conside dere red d as attr attrac activ tive e nuis nuisan ance ces. s. GSI GSI obse observ rved ed ordi ordina nary ry care care in maintaining its store.

The ball could not have been among among the merchandi merchandise se in one of the store’s grocery aisles, where they would display, naturally, grocery items, not toys. It could not have rolled down the aisle from ineffective stacking or any activity the employees do in their everyday course of duty.

The store could not have warned customers customers of the puddle on the floor, in the possible event that it was not there prior to the child’s accident. Castro presents this possibility in his testimony: Q: What else did you see? A: Some items from a nearby shelf had fallen down the floor. Q: What were these items? A: There were a couple of bottles of syrup, mostly in plastic bottles, except one glass bottle that had broken and spilled part of its contents on the floor. Q: To what do you account this? A: I could infer from the position of Ricky that he bumped into the shelf containing syrup bottles and knocked off some of them.


By the mere possibility of this circumstance, this eliminates one requisite for the application of res ipsa loquitur — the accident being caus cause ed

by

an

age agency ncy

or

inst instrrume umental ntalit ity y

withi ithin n

the the

exc exclusi lusive ve

manage manageme ment nt or contro controll of the person person charge charged d with with the neglige negligence nce complai complained ned of. This possibi possibilit lity y shows shows that the circum circumsta stance nces s of the incident were not under GSI’s sole and absolute power to implement or prevent. Other possible causes to a similar accident exist beyond the control of the defendant. Examples include the accidental breakage of syrup bottles at the precise time of the incident, tripping on a random cust custom omer er,, gett gettin ing g pushe pushed d aside aside by hum human and/o and/orr cart cart traff traffic ic,, and and collision with other children.

It can be argued that Castro was merely speculating, because he was at another aisle when the incident happened and could not have seen exactly how the puddle on the floor came to be. Nonetheless, the same can be said about the mother’s statement — she did not see her child fall until the exact moment he slammed onto the floor, from a distance where it is questionable that she can ascertain with ease that the spot he slipped on was wet prior to the incident. Her testimony validates this.

Q: Do you remember anything unusual that happened while you and Ricky were picking up groceries at the shelves? A: Yes, a small ball rolled along the aisle and Ricky ran after it. Q: Was he able to catch the ball? A: No. Although Ricky had gone some distance down the aisle from where I stood, I saw him slip with a heavy bang on a wet section of the aisle. As ruled in Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, 476 SCRA 236, in every tort case under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove prove by a prep prepon onde dera ranc nce e of evid eviden ence ce,, amon among g othe others, rs, the the fault fault or negligence of the defendant, and the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred. Here, Jonna failed to establish sufficient evidence of such negligence.

From this, it can be gathered that the defendant did not commit gross negligence in maintaining the safety of their premises, or at the very least, such gross negligence is not sufficiently proven.

II. GSI is not liable for damages.


The provisions provisions of Article Article 2180 2180 of the Civil Civil Code include include that the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functio functions. ns. Howeve However, r, this this all relies relies on liabili liability ty under under Articl Article e 21 2176 76,, as provided: Art. Art. 21 2180 80.. The The obli obliga gati tion on impo impose sed d by Arti Articl cle e 21 2176 76 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx

xxx

xxx

Article 2176, which defines liability by quasi-delict, states: Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-ex pre-exist isting ing contrac contractua tuall relatio relation n betwe between en the partie parties, s, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Once more, for liability to be established, there must be proven the existence of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant. In the case at bar, the defendant was not maintaining attractive nuisances, and the the pudd puddle le,, suppo suppose sedl dly y the the inju injury ry’s ’s proxi proxima mate te caus cause, e, was was not not proven to be a result of their negligence or imprudence alone. Because of this, they cannot be held liable for damages the plaintiff sustained.

III. Jonna is not not entitled entitled to recove recover r damages damages..

Jonna is demanding demanding compensation compensation for actual and moral damages, in total amounting to 500,000 PHP.

Under nder Arti Articl cle e 21 2199 99 of the the Civi Civill Code Code,, one one is enti entitl tled ed to an adequa adequate te compen compensati sation, on, only only for such such pecuni pecuniary ary loss loss suffer suffered ed.. Such Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. The plaintiff has duly proven the expenses she incurred from paying for her son’s medical bills. Should GSI be held liable for damages, Jonna can recover the amount spent for actual damages.

On the other hand, she cannot recover moral damages amounting to the sum she seeks to claim. While Article 2217 of the Civil Code lists ment mental al angu anguish ish,, fright fright,, and serio serious us anxie anxiety ty as exam example ples s of moral moral damage, in the case in question, there is no justification of the award


demand demanded ed being being propor proportio tional nal to the injuri injuries es suffere suffered. d. The Suprem Supreme e Court stated the purpose of moral damages in Lorzano v. Tabayag, G.R. No. 189647, as follows: Moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only to enab enable le the the inju injure red d part party y to obta obtain in “mea “means ns,, dive divers rsio ions ns or amusements” that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering that resu result lted ed by reas reason on of the the defe defend ndan ant’ t’s s culp culpab able le acti action on.. The The purpose of such damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. In other words, the award thereof is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; ante; there therefore fore,, it must must always always reaso reasonabl nably y approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed. Jonna presented presented evidence evidence of expenses expenses from having to distract her son from the pain he suffered. What, then, of the mental stress Jonna suffered from seeing her only son hurt? Primary responsibility over a non non-em -emancipated

child hild

belon longs

to

his

parents.

Jon Jonna

hersel self

acknowledges this responsibility when she was questioned. Q: But when you took him there, you of course are aware that that the the su supe perm rmar arke kett did did not not have have a leav leavee-yo your ur-c -chi hild ld service? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Consequently, you were aware that the responsibility for lookin king aft after Ricky’ ky’s needs and and safe afety while ile in the supermarket is primarily in your hands as his mother? A: Yes, Yes, Sir, Sir, but but super superma marke rkets ts alwa always ys expe expect ct chil childr dren en to come with their parents and so it has to make sure that the place is safe for children. Q: But do you agree that, as his mother, he is safer when he stays by your side in a public place like a supermarket? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Still, you let him slip away from your control, when he ran after that ball? A: Yes, Sir, but the supermarket should keep their eyes open for things like loose balls running down their aisles, drawing children away from their parents, and letting them slip on carelessly spilled liquids. Unde nder

Article

20

of

the Fam Family

Code,

this

author hority

and

respon responsib sibili ility ty may not be renoun renounce ced d or transfe transferre rred d exce except pt in cases cases autho authori rize zed d by law. law. Even Even with within in the the su supe perm rmar arke ket’s t’s prem premis ises es,, Jonn Jonna a cannot cannot hold hold the superm supermarke arket’s t’s manage manageme ment nt or its staff staff princi principal pally ly accountable for the welfare of her son, because such accountability is inherently hers as his parent and designated guardian.

By allowing her child of tender age to run down the aisle without her superv supervisio ision, n, allowi allowing ng him to reach reach a consid consider erable able dis distanc tance e from from where she stood, there is a clear display of contributory negligence on


Jonna’s part. part.

With With contri contribut butory ory neglige negligence nce establ establishe ished, d, the linger lingering ing legal legal question may now be answered. Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, when the plaintiff’s negligence was only contributory, the plaintiff may reco recove verr damage damages, s, but but the the cour courts ts sh shal alll miti mitigat gate e the the dama damage ges s to be awarded. Article 2214 further supports this. Even in quasi-delict cases, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that that sh she e may may reco recove ver. r. The The Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt held held in Natio Nationa nall Powe Powerr Corp Corpo orat ration ion v. Heirs irs of Nobl Noble e Casio asiona nan, n, 572 SCR SCRA 71, that hat the the underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full, but must bear the consequences of his own negligence.

Prayer

Wherefore Wherefore,, premises premises considered, considered, defendant defendant Gloria Gloria Supermart Supermarts, s, Inc respectfully prays the Court to:

1. Declare Declare the defendant defendant not liable liable for injuries injuries sustained sustained by plaintiff’s plaintiff’s son; 2. Thereby Thereby dismiss dismiss this case case for lack lack of merit; merit; and and 3. Deny the the plaintiff’s plaintiff’s demand demand for the defendan defendantt to pay her 500,0 500,000 00 PHP in damages

Trial Memorandum - Bueno v GSI

Recommend Documents