[Type text] Page 1

[Type text] Page 2

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR HIS NEGLIGENCE ACT

The Plaintiff humbly submits that,the defendant here had the knowledge about the tough case of
pregnancy,and after he chooses to take her to hospital.,in his private car. He self imposed the
duty of care towords her ,to take her to nearest possible hospital, as she was dire need of it

[Type text] Page 3

[Type text] Page 4
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1.THAT THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR HIS NEGLIGENCE ACT

Negligence as a tort is the breach of a breach of a legal duty to take care which result in damage,
undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.1the definition involve three important constituents of
negligence: (1).a legal duty to exercise due care on the part of party complained of towords the
party complaining the former’s conduct, with in the scope of the duty (2).breach of the said
duty(3).consequential damage.2

1.1 THAT THERE WAS DUTY OF CARE

In deciding whether there was duty of care or not,and to explain the new duty situation here,we
must refer to the principle of forseeability and proximity which was laid down byLORD ATKIN
in the celebrated case of donoghue vs stevenson3, in the following words: “you must take
reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely
to injure your neighbor .who then ,in law is my neighbor? The answer seems to be, person
who are so closely and directly affectd by my act,that I ought reasonably to have them in
contemplation as being so affected when im directing my mind to the acts or omission
which are in my mind.”in the case , the moment the defendant chose to take the plaintiff, to the
hospital and to do so, carry her in his private car, and by acting so, he self imposed the duty of
care ,towords the plaintiff as , her situation was closely and directly affected by the action of
defendant. because , she was a ,tough case of pregnency , as known by the defendant,the duty of
care of the ,defendant increases even more.

To ascertain exactly what duty of care owed by the defendant, we must see it in the prudent eye
of a reasonable person .in this case, the plaintiff, who was a pregnet women with a tough case ,
who just had an accident ,required immediate medical attention .even if we refer the guidelines
given by the govt of india which came after ordere by the honourable supreme court in the case

1
2
3

[Type text] Page 5

of savelife foundation vs union of india , Notification dated 12.5.2015 issued by the Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways containing guidelines for protection of good Samaritans to be
in force till appropriate legislation is framed by Union Legislature,state in its very first point that
:a bystander or good Samaritan including an eyewitness of a road accident may take an injured
person to the nearest hospital, and the bystander or good Samaritan should be allowed to leave
immediately except after furnishing address by the eyewitness only and no question shall be
asked to such bystander or good Samaritan.In the section 134 of motor vehicle act4,it is stated
that , the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, must take the reasonable care and take
the injured to the nearest hospital.

So here ,in the given circumstances the defendant had a duty of care to ,take the plaintiff to
nearest hospital.

1.2 THAT THERE WAS A BREACH OF THIS DUTY

As observed by the honorable supreme court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs state of
punjab5 .”negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which
a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not
do”.in this case defendant ,who had a duty of care towards the concerned plaintiff ,to take
her to the nearest hospital, did not do so. this amount to negligence by omission to do
something which a reasonable man in this situation would have done.

1.3THAT THERE WAS DAMAGE FROM THIS BREACH OF DUTY

the plaintiff here ,due to the negligence of the defendant ,gave birth to a still born child
,which could have prevented had she was given immediate treat ment in the nearest possible
hospital .here the plaintiff must be paid non pecuniary damges. For the mental trauma she
has to suffer after math of loosing her child, .as in the case of shraddha vs badresh6,the
high court of Madhya Pradesh,followed the judgement ofkarnataka high court in the case of
,divisional controller, B.T.S. Division, Karnataka state road transport corporation, 7and

4
5
6
7

[Type text] Page 6

 enhanced the compensation awarded from Rs 1,50,000/- to 2,50,000/-. The court held thata
still born baby has to be considered child.

2.THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NEGLIGENT PRIMA FACIE AND MAXIM OF RES

IPSA LOQUITOR IS APPLICABLE

2.1 THAT THE BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE MAXIM OF RES

IPSA LOQUITOR APPLICABLE

IN the case ashis kumar majumdar vs aishi ram batra charitable trust8it was held that :the
maxim res ipsa loquitor applies to a case in whichcertain facts proved by the plantiff having to
allege and prove any specific act or omission of the defendant,the principal functionof the maxim
is to prevent which would result if the plaintiff was invariably required to prove the precise
causeof the accident when the relevant facts are unknown to him butare with in the knowledge
of the defendant. The maxim would apply to a situation when themere happening of the accident
is more consistent with the negligence of the defendant than with other causes.

2.2 WHETHER THE FACTS HERE RAISE PRIMA FACIA PRESUMPTION OF

NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT

As it is held in the pushpabhai vs ranjit ginning and pressing co.9, that when the accident
explains only one thing and tthat is that the accident could not occur ordinarily unless the
defendant had been negligent, the law raises presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant.in such cases it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove accident and nothing more.In this
case the defendant ,e pwith his own car,with the prior knowledge that the ,third signal was a very
busy signal, decides to run the risk of rushing the car ,while yellow light is on.then there was an
accident, which took place in consequence to this.

in the case of sayad akbar vs state of Karnataka10.it was held that in first place, the event or
accident must be of the kind which doesn’t happen in ordinary course of thing if those who have

8
9
10

[Type text] Page 7

management and control use due care;secondly;it must also be shown that the event or thing
which caused the accident was with in defendant control. In the fact of the given case the
defendant ,at the second signal he realized that vinaya had lost her consciousness; then however
he decides to stop near second signal.but near the third signal he abruptly decides to rush through
even after knowing that the signal here is the busiest one..

therefore, the presumption of negligence shoul held on the part of defendant.After hereing the
defendant The court may be pleased to pass any orderon the claim of compensation.

[Type text] Page 8

 PRAYER

Wherefore ,in the light of issues raised , argument advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully respected that this honorable court to adjudge and declare that:

1. The compensation amount rs 5,000,00 be awarded to be awrde to plaintiff 1

2. The compensation amount rs 1,000,00 be awarded to plaintiff 2

All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in
the light of justice ,equity and good concinse.

[Type text] Page 9

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR HIS NEGLIGENCE ACT

1.1 WHETHER THERE WAS A DUTY OF CARE

1.2 WHETHER THERE WAS A BREACH OF THIS DUTY

1.3WHETHER THERE WAS DAMAGE FROM THIS BREACH OF DUTY AND

SHOULD COMPENSATION BE PAID

2.WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS NEGLIGENT PRIMA FACIE AND MAXIM OF

RES IPSA LOQUITOR IS APPLICABLE

2.1 WHETHER BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE MAXIM OF RES

IPSA LOQUITOR APPLICABLE

2.2 WHETHER THE FACTS HERE RAISE PRIMA FACIA PRESUMPTION OF

NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT

[Type text] Page 10

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMIT THIS MEMORENDUM OF SUIT FILED

UNDER THIS HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT UNDER SECTION 9 ,SECT0F
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ACT, 1908.

BOTH THE SUITS ARE CLUBBED UNDE ORDER 2 SECTION 3 R/W ORDER 1
RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ACT,1908.

[Type text] Page 11

SHOULD COMPENSATION BE PAID

2.WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS NEGLIGENT PRIMA FACIE AND MAXIM OF

RES IPSA LOQUITOR IS APPLICABLE

2.1 WHETHER BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE MAXIM OF RES

IPSA LOQUITOR APPLICABLE

2.2 WHETHER THE FACTS HERE RAISE PRIMA FACIA PRESUMPTION OF

NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT

[Type text] Page 12

1.John is a professional photographer working in a leading company which sells apparel
for expecting mothers. One of his sister is a doctor. John frequently visits her sister’s
hospital. John had recently purchased a brand new car called Venue and which was bright
blue in color and looked attractive. which he wanted to take to his office to show off to his
colleagues.

2. he had four traffic signals on his commute to office every day. On his first signal, he
passes by a petrol bunk .on his second signal he passes by a government hospital. the third
signal is a extremely busy signal as there is a school and college near the same .Near the
fourth signal there is a super speciality hospital.

3. while going to office, he crossed the first signal and he saw an accident near the same.
Where a lady passenger of an auto was thrown out on the road. When he went to see the
lady ,after parking his car ,he realized that the lady was pregnant and was a patient of her
sister, whom he recognizes .He immediately rushed to her, picked her up and took her in
his car to take her to the hospital. He had tried calling sister but in vein.

4.the lady was Vinaya .Her case was frequently discussed at home. That her case is a tough
one .she had been childless for 7 years , finally she could conceive after getting IVF
treatment by john’s sister .she was in later stage of pregnancy. She was advised bed rest
because the pregnancy was a tough one. This very fact that her pregnancy is a tough one
was being said to john by her sister in multiple occasions.

5.after ,getting her board on his car, john immediately proceeded towards the hospital near
the fourth signal .at the second signal he realized that Vinaya had lost consciousness;
however he stopped at the, signal and waited till the signal turn green .But he rushed
through the third signal as the light was yellow, and on the verge of becoming red such that
another car which was going through , still the traffic light being yellow got jammed with
the rear side of the john’s car .after speedy recovery , he took Vinaya to the hospital near
the fourth signal.

4.After he coming back home .Despite not being present there ,as a sister , she merely
comforted him, saying vaguely that he did , all there was to do. After that he was given two
notices that two suits have been filed against him, one by him and other by the car owner
for payment of damages.

[Type text] Page 13