IN THE CIVIL COURT OF RANCHI

AT RANCHI

CIVIL SUIT NO…………../2015

Under Section 9 and 19 of the Code of the Civil Procedure

-IN THE MATTER OF-

MRS. SITA JHA……………...………………………………………………….………………………….PLANTIFF

VERSUS

MR. SURESH……………………………………………………………………………………………DEFENDANT

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

VIJAY ROHAN KRISHNA

ROLL NO. – 543

SEMESTER – I ‘A

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. List of Abbreviations……….…………………………………………………………..…3
2. Index of authorities……….………………………………………………………….........4
 Books referred…….……………………………………………………………….4
 Statues…………….……………………………………………………………….4
 Websites………….………………………………………………………………..4
 List of cases…….………………………………………………………………….5
3. Statement of Jurisdiction.…………………………………………………………………6
4. Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………...7
5. Statement of Issues………………………………………………………………………..8
6. Statement of Arguments…………………………………………………………………..9
7. Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………………………10
8. Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………….14

2|Page
 ABBREVIATIONS

 & - And
 A.I.R. - All India Reporter
 Hon’ble - Honorable
 CPC - Civil Procedure Code
 Sec - Section
 Co. - Company
 Vs. - Versus
 Ltd. - Limited
 Rs. - Rupees

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF BOOKS

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal - The Law of Torts. Twenty Sixth Edition

 Dr. R.K. Bangia- Law of Torts. Twenty Second Edition
 Ramaswamy Iyer's The Law of Torts, Tenth edition.
 Winfield & Jolowicz's Tort, Eighteenth edition.
 India., & Saha, A. N. (1986). The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
 India., & Roy, S. C. (1909). The Code of Civil Procedure: Act V of 1908,

STATUTES

 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

4|Page
LIST OF CASES

1. Booth v White
4th Cir. 2003………………………………………….………………………….11
2. Palsgraff Vs. Long Island Railroad
28.04.2005 2nd Circuit…………………………………………………………………….……12
3. Owens v Brimmell[1977]
1 Q.B. 859…………………………………………………………………………………12
4. Traynor v Donovan
[1978]769F.2d1344…………………………..…………………………………………………..13
5. Malone v Rowan
(1984)3AllE.R.402 ……………………………………………………………………..................1

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the plaintiff most humbly and respectfully requests this Hon’ble Civil Court to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 91 and Section 192 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 and
most humbly submits herself to its jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to hear the present matter
and adjudge accordingly.

1The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of
which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

2 Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of 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.

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Plaintiff most respectfully and humbly submits as under:

 Mrs. Sita Jha was returning from her office at 10:10 PM

 As petrol in her car got over, she took lift from Mr. Suresh, a doctor coming from the opposite
direction who seemed to be drunk.
 She offered to drive Mr. Suresh’s car if he was not comfortable.
 A truck was coming from the opposite direction. The light of the truck was very high and it was
raining cats and dogs.
 At that time it was tough to drive. Immediately one child was trying to cross the road.
 In order to save that child Mr. Suresh lost his control over car and met with an accident.
 She got injured and was admitted in the hospital. Now she is claiming compensation.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Issue 1: Whether the defendant is liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff?

Issue 2: Whether the Plaintiff can claim compensation from the defendant?

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the principle of Negligence applies in this case?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the principle of Negligence applies in this
case. The Defendant had a duty to the plaintiff; the defendant breached that duty by failing to
conform to the required standard of conduct which in this case would be driving in a state of
intoxication.

II. Whether the Plaintiff can claim compensation from the defendant?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages as
legal injury has been caused to the plaintiff by the defendant. Due to the defendant’s negligent
driving, the plaintiff met with an accident, got injured and was admitted in the hospital.
Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation for the loss suffered.

9|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF NEGLIGENCE APPLIES IN THIS CASE?

It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble court that the principle of ‘Negligence’ perfectly
applies in this case.

The principle of “Negligence” contains three very important essentials, the first one being that a
person or an organization owes a duty of care to someone else and must act in a reasonable and
prudent manner. Secondly, it is to be proved that the duty has been breached and not properly
taken care of due to which the other party suffered any legal loss or injury. Thirdly, there must be
factual causation which means that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or
damage sustained. The duty of care is owed the court found that the duty must be owed to a
person that can reasonably be foreseen under the circumstances1. In other words, there should be
a direct relation between the breach of duty and the loss suffered. The core idea of negligence is
that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential
harm that they might be foreseeable cause to other people.

The Counsel would like to throw light on the fact that, a situation where it was raining heavily,
the driver is bound to the duty of driving at a reasonable speed and taking reasonable measures to
avoid any accidents. In the case we are discussing, bad weather definitely contributed to the
accident but the driver also owed a duty of care to take significant safety measures which he did
not take. His state of intoxication was another contributor to the accident as in such a state ability
to drive is impaired which is more likely to cause car accidents.

1
Palsgraff Vs. Long Island Railroad

10 | P a g e
The Counsel would like to refer to the case of Booth vs. White [2003]1, in which the claimant
and his friend had been out drinking but had not been together all of the night. The claimant took
a lift from his friend on his way home knowing that he had been drinking but did not know how
much. Unfortunately, they met with an accident. It was decided that the claimant had not
contributed to the injuries; he had no way of knowing that the driver of the car was over the limit
and he had no responsibility to check.

It would be recommended to never get into a car with a driver that you think has been drinking
but if you do unknowingly about how drunk the driver is and you are unfortunate enough to be
injured then you are entitled to claim compensation for the losses suffered, if any.

1
Booth vs. White [2003] ,

11 | P a g e
Issue 2: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM THE
DEFENDANT?

It is humbly contended before this court that the defendant can be held liable to pay
compensation to the plaintiff as the plaintiff suffered a legal injury or the legal right of the
plaintiff was infringed in this case due to the negligent act of the defendant.

As said by Lord Atkin, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor”2. He then defined “neighbors” as
“persons so closely related and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them
in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions
which are called in question.”

Referring to the case of Owens vs. Brimmell3, both the driver and his passenger had drunk about
eight to nine pints of beer, and on their way home the driver lost control of his car so that it
collided with a lamppost. The passenger sued in negligence. The courts decided that the
passenger should be able to get compensation in spite of the fact that they got into a car with
someone they knew was drunk and unable to drive properly, it was decided that the Claimant had
contributed to their injuries and their compensation was reduced by 20% but they did receive the
compensation.

Further in the case of Traynor vs. Donovan 4 & Malone vs Rowan5, the courts held that is the
passenger of the car did not know that the driver was over the drink drive limit and was not able
to tell that they were over the limit they had not contributed to their accident. Hence, based on
the above arguments, it is humbly requested that full compensation shall be awarded to the
plaintiff as defendant is liable for negligence in this case.

2
Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) A.C 562, per Lord Atkin
3
Owens vs. Brimmell
4
Traynor vs. Donovan
5
Malone vs Rowan ,

12 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the defendant humbly prays before the court to declare that:

1. The Defendant is liable, as legal injury was caused.

2. The plaintiff is entitled to get compensation.

And pass any order in favor of the Plaintiff that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and
good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted before this court.

Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of the Plantiff

13 | P a g e