MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum to wit: PREFATORY STATEMENT 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-existing contracting relation between the parties between the parties is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter. (Article 2176, Civil Code of the Philippines) STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an action for damages filed by Helen Palsgraf against Long Island Railroad Co. for the injuries that she suffered when she was present in the station of the company when the explosion happened. Ms. Palsgraf claims P500, 000 damages against Long Island Railroad Co, for her medical expenses, and for the emotional trauma that she suffered as a result of the accident. STATEMENT OF FACTS Helen Palsgraf (Plaintiff) was on the Long Island Railroad Co.s (Defendant) platform after having purchased a ticket. A train then made a temporary stop at the station, as it waited for passengers to board the same. Two men then made a run for the train. One of them made it to the train. The second man, carrying a 36 cm long package wrapped in newspaper, tried to get into the train. A Long Island Railroad Co. guard aboard the train saw the man and tried to help the second man get in. Another Long Island Railroad Co. guard on the platform then intervened and tried to push the second man into the train, in an effort to get him there. The resulting action made the package carried by the second man to fall on the rails. The package then immediately exploded, as it contained fireworks. The resulting explosion then managed to knock off the scales on the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales then fell on the plaintiff, which caused her to file this action for damages. ISSUES (1) Whether or not the Long Island Railroad Co. is liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code (2) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the damages she claims for. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
1

1. THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CO. IS LIABLE FOR QUASI DELICT The Long Island Railroad Co. is liable for quasi-delict for the actions of their guards (through the doctrine of respondeat superior, where the negligence of the employee is conclusively the negligence of the employer) correspond to the elements set forth by the same article. There was: A. An omission amounting to a fault or negligence imputable to the defendant Negligence, as defined in Article 1173 of the Civil Code, refers to the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. In the case at hand, the nature of the obligation of the guards emphasizes extra diligence and care when it comes to the safety of persons boarding the train and their luggage. The action of the guards in attempting to get the second person to the train by pushing him is not perceptive of safety. First, there is a right time and place to safely board the train and that is when it is stationary. Though they might claim that they did their acts out of humanitarian consideration, it still does not erase the fact that they were unintentionally neglecting the safety of the second passengers person and the luggage that he was carrying. Second, pushing a person is a forceful act, and to do so near a moving locomotive is open to possibilities for accidents. There is also the question of knowing the contents of the bag. It would not matter. Whether the content was visible or not, it cannot be avoided that the guards should have exercised great caution when dealing with the baggage of their companys customers. B. Such damage or injury caused to the plaintiff is the natural and probable or direct and immediate consequence of the defendants wrongful act or omission. The acts of the guards were also the proximate cause of the damage sustained by Helen Palsgraf. If not for their negligence, there would have been no explosion to injure Palsgraf. 2. HELEN PALSGRAF IS ENTITLED TO THE DAMAGES THAT SHE CLAIMS FOR. Palsgraf is entitled to the damages that she claims for. Applying jurisprudence in the application of Article 2176 of the Civil Code, Palsgraf can collect damages if by proving the following through preponderance of evidence: a. that she had suffered damages, b. the negligence of the defendant, and c. the

connection between the negligence and the damage caused by the defendant (Child learning Center Inc. v. Tagorio)1 In the case, Palsgraf indeed suffered damages and is now even suing the company for her medical expenses. It was also reiterated earlier that there was negligence on the part of the guards of the company since they were supposed to exude greater diligence on their part since it was connected with their line of work. Palsgraf also sues for moral damages, as she undoubtedly suffered not only physically, but also emotionally, owing to the shock of having large scales fall down on her person. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this HONORABLE COURT, that judgment be rendered making Long Island Railroad Co. liable for damages for the injury suffered by Mrs. Helen Palsgraf. Makati City, April 15, 2013 Atty. A (1250102) Counsel for the Plaintiff

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/, http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/150920.htm (accessed April 12, 2013).