1

BEFORE
SUB DIVISION COURT LD. CIVIL
JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION

CIVIL SUIT………. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

PRIYA ………………….………………………………………. Plaintiff

Versus

RAVI & CAFÉ DELIGHT………………………………………Defendant

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 2

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

STATEMENT OF FACTS__________________________________________3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION__________________________________4

ISSUES RAISED_________________________________________________5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS_____________________________________6

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_______________________________________7

PRAYERS______________________________________________________12

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 3

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-

 Ravi, a skilled and experienced painter, was commissioned by Meera, the

owner of Café Delight, to create a mural on one of the walls inside the café.
 Meera provided all necessary materials, including high-quality paint and
brushes, to ensure that Ravi could complete the mural to the best of his ability.
 Ravi began his work during the business hours of the café, which was open to
customers. While painting, Ravi inadvertently spilled a bucket of paint on the
floor, creating a wet and slippery surface.
 Priya, a customer, entered the café unaware of the spill and slipped on the wet
floor, resulting in a fall that injured her wrist.
 Priya incurred medical expenses amounting to ₹5,000 for her injury and later
filed a lawsuit against both Ravi and Café Delight for negligence,
claiming that the café and its contractor failed to take appropriate safety
measures, thereby causing her injury.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 4

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter as it involves a civil
suit for compensation arising out of an incident that occurred on the premises of
Café Delight, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 5

-ISSUES RAISED-

ISSUE 1
Negligence and Duty of Care
Whether Ravi breach his duty of care by spilling the paint without taking adequate
precautions, and whether "Café Delight" hold any liability for not providing a safe
environment for its customers?

ISSUE 2
Vicarious Liability
Whether "Café Delight" vicariously liable for the actions of Ravi,
Considering he was performing work within the scope of his employment when the
incident occurred?

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 6

-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS –

I. Ravi breached his duty of care by spilling the paint without taking
adequate precautions.

II. Café Delight hold liability for not providing a safe environment for its
customers.

III. Ravi’s scope of employment when the incident occurred.

IV. Vicarious Liability of Café Delight for the actions of Ravi.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 7

-ADVANCED ARGUMENTS-

I. RAVI BREACHED HIS DUTY OF CARE BY SPILLING THE PAINT

WITHOUT TAKING ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS.

The issue, in the instant case, before the court is whether Ravi breached his duty of
care by spilling the paint without taking adequate precautions. Which caused Priya,
a customer of Café Delight to suffer an injury to her wrist resulting into the
medical expenses of ₹5,000.

Negligence
Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that someone of ordinary
prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Essentially, it
involves actions—or a lack of actions—that fall short of what a reasonable person
would do to prevent harm to others. This breach of duty can lead to accidents,
injuries, or damages, which wouldn't have occurred if due care had been taken. The
concept is central to many personal injury cases, where the injured party must
show that the negligence of another party caused their harm.

Duty of Care
Duty of care is a legal principle that mandates individuals and organizations to
adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could
foreseeably harm others. This concept ensures that actions are taken with the
attentiveness and caution that a prudent person would exercise in similar
circumstances. Whether in professional settings, road safety, or even everyday
situations, the duty of care aims to prevent negligence by holding parties
accountable for maintaining a safe environment.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 8

Ravi’s breach of Duty of Care & Negligence

Ravi, as a painter hired by Café Delight to create a mural on the café's wall, was
bound by a duty of care to perform his work safely and professionally. This duty
required Ravi to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harm to the café’s
property, employees, and patrons. Ravi breached this duty by accidentally spilling
a bucket of paint on the café floor and failing to promptly address the hazard. This
created a slippery and dangerous surface, putting anyone unaware of the spill at
risk.

Priya, a customer of Café Delight, unaware of the spill, walked in and slipped on
the wet floor, resulting in a fall that caused injury to her wrist. The medical
attention required for her injury led to expenses amounting to ₹5,000. The harm
Priya suffered was a foreseeable consequence of Ravi's failure to maintain a safe
environment. A reasonably prudent painter would have either cleaned the spill
immediately or placed visible warnings to prevent accidents.

Therefore, Ravi's breach of duty directly resulted in Priya's injury and the
subsequent medical expenses, demonstrating negligence on his part and
establishing his liability for the damages incurred.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 9

II. CAFÉ DELIGHT HOLD LIABILITY FOR NOT PROVIDING A

SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR ITS CUSTOMERS.

Café Delight’s Duty of Care

Café Delight, as an establishment that invites customers onto its premises, holds a
significant duty of care to ensure a safe environment. This responsibility means
taking reasonable measures to prevent harm to patrons from foreseeable risks. The
duty of care encompasses promptly addressing potential hazards, such as spills,
faulty equipment, or unsafe conditions, to prevent accidents and injuries.

Café Delight’s breach of Duty of Care

Café Delight holds a critical duty of care to provide a safe environment for its
customers. This duty extends to ensuring that any potential hazards are promptly
addressed to prevent accidents and injuries. This duty was breached when Ravi, a
painter hired by Café Delight, accidentally spilled a bucket of paint on the café
floor, creating a slippery and hazardous surface. The management's failure to
implement necessary safety measures or warnings left this hazard unaddressed,
compromising the safety of its patrons.

Priya, a customer at Café Delight, was unaware of the spill and subsequently
slipped on the wet floor, resulting in a wrist injury. The medical attention required
for her injury led to expenses amounting to ₹5,000. The harm Priya suffered was a
foreseeable consequence of the café's negligence in maintaining a safe
environment. A reasonably prudent establishment would have either cleaned the
spill immediately or placed visible warnings to alert customers to the danger.

By failing to take these reasonable precautions, Café Delight breached its duty of
care. The café's neglect directly contributed to the conditions that caused Priya's
fall and injury, making the establishment liable for the resulting harm. Priya's
injury and the associated medical expenses are a direct result of Café Delight's
failure to ensure a safe environment for its customers, and thus the café should be
held accountable for this negligence.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 10

III. RAVI’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE INCIDENT

OCCURRED.

Scope of Employment
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds employers or principals
responsible for the actions of their employees or agents, provided these actions
occur within the scope of their employment. This means that if an employee's
negligence or wrongful act happens while they are performing their job duties, the
employer can be held liable for any resulting harm or damage. In this case, since
Ravi’s paint spill occurred while he was actively engaged in his job duties, Café
Delight can be held vicariously liable for the consequences of his actions. This
means that even though Ravi directly caused the hazard, the café bears legal
responsibility because the incident happened during his employment.

Ravi’s Scope of Employment

Ravi was hired by Café Delight specifically to paint a mural on the café's wall. His
scope of employment included all activities related to the mural's creation, such as
preparing the painting area, handling painting materials, and executing the actual
painting. As part of his responsibilities, Ravi was expected to maintain a safe
working environment for both himself and others around him.

While performing these duties, Ravi accidentally spilled a bucket of paint on the
café floor. This incident occurred within the scope of his employment, as he was
actively engaged in the tasks for which he was hired. Therefore, any consequences
arising from actions directly related to his painting activities, including the
accidental paint spill, fall within the realm of his employment responsibilities.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 11

IV. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF CAFÉ DELIGHT FOR THE ACTIONS

OF RAVI.

Café Delight holds vicarious liability for Ravi’s actions. Ravi was hired by Café
Delight specifically to paint a mural on the café's wall, and while performing this
duty, he accidentally spilled paint on the café floor. This incident created a
hazardous, slippery condition directly within his employment scope. Consequently,
Ravi's negligence, which resulted in the spill, implicates Café Delight under the
principle of vicarious liability.

Priya, a customer, unaware of the spill, slipped on the paint and injured her wrist,
which required medical attention. The medical expenses amounted to ₹5,000. The
harm Priya suffered was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the spill, a risk
inherent in Ravi's job activities. Café Delight had a duty to ensure a safe
environment for its customers, including promptly addressing hazards or placing
warnings. Their failure to do so signifies a breach of their duty of care.

Vicarious liability ensures that employers are held accountable for the actions of
their employees when such actions occur within the scope of employment. In this
case, Ravi's actions were directly tied to his job duties, making Café Delight
responsible for the resulting harm. Therefore, under vicarious liability, Café
Delight must compensate Priya for the damages resulting from this breach of duty,
reinforcing the employer's obligation to maintain a safe environment and address
any hazards promptly.

-Memorial For Plaintiff-

 12

-PRAYERS-
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before this Hon’ble Court
that it may graciously adjudicate & be pleaded to:

IN THE MATTER OF

Priya v. Ravi & Cafe Delight

The Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following reliefs:

1. I pray that Café Delight be ordered to compensate Priya for her medical
expenses amounting to ₹5,000 incurred as a result of the injury sustained
due to the paint spill.
2. I pray that Café Delight be directed to pay an appropriate amount to Priya
for the pain, suffering, and inconvenience caused by the incident.
3. I pray that Café Delight be mandated to implement effective safety measures
and protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future, including immediate
clean-up of spills and clear signage to warn patrons of potential hazards.
4. I pray that Café Delight be required to cover all legal costs and expenses
incurred by the Plaintiff in pursuing this case.
5. Also, any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deems just and equitable in
light of the circumstances.

Counsels on behalf of Plaintiff

Dated: 21.10.2024

-Memorial For Plaintiff-