The Case of the Rambla Street Performer

Jordi had been performing on La Rambla for nearly five years, attracting tourists with his comedy shows and colorful props. Each day, he carefully set up a small safety perimeter using cones and ropes, following the strict regulations that the city had established for all licensed performers. He always carried his permit in his pocket, ready to present it to police officers or city inspectors.

One unusually crowded Saturday, a nearby vendor selling handmade jewelry placed his cart closer than usual to Jordi’s performing area. During a comedic routine, Jordi accidentally stepped backward and bumped the edge of the cart. A small candle on the vendor’s display tipped over and fell onto paper decorations. A small flame appeared. Although the fire was quickly extinguished, the vendor claimed the flame caused minor property damage, including scorched decorations and smoke marks on the cart.

Believing Jordi had been careless, the vendor filed a lawsuit, accusing him of being negligent and putting the public at risk. Jordi disagreed, arguing that a passerby’s cigarette—not his actions—had actually caused the flame.

During the formal hearing, several tourists served as eyewitnesses. They stated that Jordi had clearly marked his performing space and that the vendor’s cart was unusually close, limiting Jordi’s movement. A City Council representative reminded the court that performers were still liable for accidents within their area, even if they followed the majority of the rules.

After examining all testimonies, the judge ruled that both parties bore some responsibility. Jordi had followed most of the safety procedures but had not checked the exact distance of the vendor’s cart before beginning his act. Meanwhile, the vendor had ignored recommended spacing guidelines. Instead of proceeding to a full trial, the court encouraged both sides to reach a settlement.

The final agreement required Jordi to attend additional safety training, while the vendor received partial compensation for the damages. Though the incident had caused tension, both eventually recognized the importance of cooperation on the busy streets of Barcelona.

---

1. Vocabulary  

1. Lawsuit – an event, often unexpected or problematic

2. Negligent – harm caused to someone’s belongings

3. Hearing – agreement reached without a full trial

4. Liable – someone who saw an event happen

5. Regulation – failing to take proper care

6. Settlement – a formal legal meeting

7. Compensation – a legal case brought to court

8. Eyewitness – an official rule that must be followed

9. Incident – a person who sells goods

10. Property damage – permission to carry out an activity legally

11. Permit – legally responsible

12. Vendor– payment for loss or harm

---

2. Synonym Matching 

1. Agreement – seller

2. Vendor     – authorization

3. Court meeting – settlement

4. Responsible – businessperson

5. Law – inccident

6. Payment – observer

7. Observer – rule

8. Accident – liable

9. Businessperson – hearing

10. Authorization – compensation

3.A What can you tell us about the following workers that you might see on La Rambla? 

B.What would be their legal situation if they are caught by the police and the consequences:

C.For each one of these options, tell us how would you think they decided to do what they do ?

1- Street Beer Seller

2-  Rose Giver

3- Top Manta Street Vendors

4- Unlicensed Street Performers

5-Unregistered Street Food Sellers

6- Women of the Night

7- Off the Books Restaurant or Bar Staff

8-  Informal Domestic Worker

9-  Paid Cash Construction Worker

10- Marijuana Dealer 

4. Role-Play Activities  

---

Role-Play 1: The Street Performer and the Vendor Dispute

Characters

• Jordi – street performer, claims the fire wasn’t his fault

• Vendor – upset about the property damage

• Eyewitness Tourist – saw what happened

• Mediator – tries to calm both sides

Objective

Reenact the moment right after the small fire. Jordi and the vendor argue over who is liable. The eyewitness and mediator help clarify details.

Key Vocabulary to Use

Permit, negligent, incident, eyewitness, property damage, compensation

Optional Twist

The eyewitness is unsure and mixes up two details—forcing the characters to question what really happened.

---

Role-Play 2: The Court Hearing

Characters

• Judge

• Jordi (defendant)

• Vendor (plaintiff)

• Two Tourist Eyewitnesses

• City Council Representative

Objective

Conduct the full hearing. Each person gives testimony, the judge asks questions, and the Council rep explains relevant regulations and performer responsibilities.

Include Discussion About

• Safety perimeter rules

• Whether Jordi was negligent

• Whether the vendor ignored spacing guidelines

• Who should receive compensation

Optional Twist

One eyewitness offers surprising new information (e.g., seeing the cigarette).

---

Role-Play 3: Negotiating a Settlement

Characters

• Jordi

• Vendor

• Court-appointed Negotiator

Objective

Instead of going to trial, both sides must reach a settlement that feels fair.
Jordi wants the compensation amount reduced; the vendor wants full payment for the damage.

Key Topics

Liability, cooperation, regulations, safe performance areas

Optional Twist

The negotiator proposes creative solutions: shared safety workshop, written agreement, or repairing the cart together.

---

Role-Play 4: City Council Safety Workshop

Characters

• Safety Trainer (City Council)

• Jordi (attending mandatory training)

• Other Performers & Vendors with their own concerns

Objective

Discuss new safety regulations to prevent future incidents. Performers and vendors ask questions, complain, or propose ideas.

Use These Themes

• Permits and rules

• Avoiding accidents in crowded areas

• Clear communication between vendors and performers

• How to reduce liability

Optional Twist

Another performer argues that the regulations are too strict, creating a debate on balancing safety with artistic freedom.

---

5. Communicative Tasks

Task A: Debate

Topic: Should street performers be held legally responsible for small accidents in crowded tourist areas?
Students argue For or Against using evidence from the text.

6. Fill-in-the-Blanks  

permit | property damage | settlement | negligent | compensation | hearing | regulation | lawsuit | eyewitness | liable

Sentences :

1. The vendor decided to file a __________ after claiming the fire affected his business.

2. Jordi argued that he was not __________ because he had taken normal safety steps.

3. The court scheduled a __________ to listen to statements from everyone involved.

4. The judge decided that Jordi was partly __________ for what happened on the street.

5. Street performers must follow each safety __________ if they want to work legally.

6. In the end, both sides accepted a __________ to avoid continuing the conflict.

7. The vendor received __________ to help recover the cost of the burned decorations.

8. An __________ told the court that the vendor’s cart was too close to Jordi’s setup.

9. Jordi always carried his performance __________ to show he was authorized to work.

10. The fire caused minor __________ that the vendor claimed hurt his sales.

7.Questions

1. Should street performers be required to have permits in all cities, or does this limit creativity? Why?

2. How can crowded tourist areas balance entertainment with public safety?

3. Who should be responsible if a minor accident happens in a public place—the performer, the business nearby, or the city?

4. What ethical challenges might street performers face when trying to make a living in busy tourist areas?

5. How can cities encourage informal workers, like vendors or performers, to follow safety and legal regulations without shutting them down?

6. In what ways can cooperation between different types of workers improve safety and customer experience in public spaces?

7. How do eyewitness accounts influence decisions in legal cases involving public incidents?

8. What kinds of training or preparation should street performers have to reduce the risk of accidents?

9. How might tourism policies affect local workers, both licensed and unlicensed?

10. Should compensation always be required when accidents occur in public spaces, even if no one was seriously hurt? Why or why not?