Defendant's arguments in the case of

Ben Parker V. Harry Osborne and Another

1) December was exceptionally cold that year and it snowed

very frequently. So, because of snow vehicles are more likely
to skid.
2) Ben had suffered an accident 6 months prior and had been
suffering from PTSD1 since.
3) Mr Harry Osborne is a teetotaler.2
4) truck which was coming towards him from the wrong side.
5) Pothole was in the middle of the road.
6) To get away from the truck which was coming from the
opposite direction, Osborne swerved and This in turn caused
him to lose control over the car and consequently hit Mr Ben
Parker who was standing in the middle of the road.
7) Harry was driving within the speed limit and even tried to
come to halt before he hit Mr Ben Parker.
8) That pothole has been a hotspot for accidents in previous
months but no action has been taken by the Government to
remedy the same.
9) Retirement age according to the Government of India
Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Department of Public Enterprises is 58 to 60 so no loss of
employment arises for Ben Parker.
10) The State of Latveria is vicariously liable for the actions
of Mr Osborne. Because after so many complaints, The city is
notorious for its miserable road infrastructure and terrible

1 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a disorder that develops in some people who
have experienced a shocking, scary, or dangerous event.
(https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd)
2 a person who never drinks alcohol.
 traffic. As a result of these conditions, accidents were
frequent in Doomstadt.
11) Harry took a small amount of alcohol so he was not
drunk. Drunk driving according to THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988 is a person should not exceed 30 mg alcohol in
his blood per 100 ml. detected in a test by a breath analyser.
12) For loss of employment of Peter Parker Harry is not
liable. The State of Latveria is vicariously liable for the action
of Osborne because of the worst road maintenance by the
Government.
13) Plaintiff should ask compensation from the government
and truck driver and not from Harry.
14) VNFI from Ben Parker because all of a sudden he stood
on the middle road .
15) Looking into facts Harry was not Negligent in any part
and even tried to stop the car but he couldn’t because of the
snow fall.
16) It was an inevitable accident which can’t be foreseen by
any reasonable man.
17) Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation
A bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. reached near a village where a cyclist suddenly
came in front of the bus and it had rained heavily so even after
applying breaks the driver could not stop the bus as a result of this
the rear portion of the bus hit another bus which was coming from
the opposite side. It was known that there was no negligence on the
part of both the drivers and they tried their best in avoiding the
accident. This was held to be a case of inevitable accident. The
defendant i.e. U.P.S.R.T.C. was held not liable for this act.
18) Driving by a Drunken Person or by a Person Under the
Influence of Drugs
(Sec. 185): Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor
vehicle,
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood
detected in a test by a breath analyser or any other test including
laboratory test, or
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be
incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be
punishable for first offense with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000, or
with both, and for second or subsequent offense, with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may
extend to Rs. 15,000, or with both. Explanation to sec. 185 provides
that for the purposes of this section, the expression “drug” means any
intoxicant other than alcohol, natural or synthetic, or any natural
material or any salt, or preparation of such substance or material as
may be notified by the Central Government under this Act and
includes a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance as defined in sec.
2(xiv) and 2(xxiii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985. Breath Test (Sec. 203): Sec. 203 empowers a police officer
in uniform or an authorized officer of the Motor Vehicle Department,
may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle
in a public place to provide one or more specimens of breath for
breath test there or nearby, if such officer has any reasonable cause to
suspect him to have committed an offense under this section. If any
person required by a police officer to provide specimens of breath
refuses, he may be arrested by that police officer, without warrant.
But if that person is at a hospital as an indoor patient, he cannot be
arrested.
A person arrested under this section shall, while at a police station, be
given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test
there.
Laboratory Test (Sec. 204): A person arrested under sec. 203 may be
required by a police officer at a police station to provide a specimen of
 his blood for a laboratory test to a registered medical practitioner
produced by such a police officer. Where such a person is female and
the registered medical practitioner produced by a police officer is
male, the specimen shall be taken only in the presence of a female,
whether a medical practitioner or not.
This provision is applicable if any of the following conditions is
satisfied:
(a) the presence of alcohol in the blood of such person was found in
his breath test,or
(b) such person, when given the opportunity to submit to a breath
test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so.

19. To prevent greater harm.

20. Plaintiff suffered an accident 6 months prior and had been suffering
from PTSD.

21. DOCTRINE OF NOTIONAL EXTENSION

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Employees State Insurance
Act are one of such acts which came into existence to curb down the
social security problems prevailing in the industrial system in our
country in order to provide benefits to the laborers. The doctrine of
notional extension is one of such theory that prescribes the
compensation which is to be paid to the employees when any accident
arises during the course of employment but the real motive of
adopting this theory was to include within its ambit the injury and
danger which is caused due to the reason of employment but not
necessarily at the workplace at working hours or while coming to and
from the place of employment.

22. Looking into all the facts itself shows that Harry wasn’t drunk
more than the alcohol consumption limit because he was driving his
car within the speed limit and he instantly reacted to opposite truck
and took a turn.