Causation Flashcards
What is proximate cause?
Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
With regards to proximate cause and medical malpractice, what is the rule?
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
What is the thin-skull rule?
pThe eggshell skull rule, also known as the thin skull rule, provides that a person’s skull was very thin due to the person’s own health condition, if the person gets into an accident, the other person who caused the accident will be liable for the actual damages, although the average person would not suffer the same serious injuries in the same accident as the person with the thin skull.
When is a felony not the proximate cause of the resulting injury?
(1) There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
What is the doctrine of last clear chance?
The doctrine of the last clear chance provides a valid and complete defense to accident liability when the negligence of the one party succeeded the negligence of the other by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the rule is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
What is the rule with regards to joint tortfeasors?
As a general rule, the joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves.
What is the liability of the owner of the vehicle with the driver, and such owner is in the vehicle at the time of the accident?
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
What is the registered owner rule?
The registered owner rule holds the registered owner of a vehicle liable for accidents and damages caused by its operation in the Philippines. It simplifies the process for victims seeking compensation and ensures accountability. Exceptions include vicarious liability and cross-claims.
What is the rule regarding the vicarious liability of an employer to his employee?
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission. One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
With regards to the registered owner rule and the employer-employee relationship, what is the rule in Caravan Travel v. Abejar?
The appropriate approach is that in cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen, in which the defendant will prove that there is no employment relationship, and the accused acted outside the scope of his tasks, and it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.
Under the Civil Code, what are the instances when a person is vicariously liable for a tort committed by another person?
This rule is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible:
(a) Father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
(b) Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
(c) Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Under the Family Code, what is the rule with regards to the liability of a parent with his child?
The Family Code states that parents and other people with parental authority are liable for any damages or injuries caused by their unemancipated children
What is the extent of the liability of a parent to a tort committed by his unemancipated child in the case of Libi v. IAC?
Parents are primarily liable.
This distinction is crucial because if parental liability were subsidiary, parents would not be able to invoke or be absolved of civil liability by proving that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. In contrast, if the liability is considered direct and primary, demonstrating such diligence serves as a valid and substantial defense. Therefore, unless parents can prove that they exercised due diligence to prevent the damages, they remain liable.
Generally, a parent is primarily liable for a tort committed by his child. But in the case of Cuadra v. Monfort, such is not the case. What is the reasoning of the court?
In this case, the Court found no evidence that the parent of the child could have foreseen or prevented the injury. The incident occurred at school under the supervision of a teacher.
What is the rule regarding the liability of schools and teachers over children in their care? What is the extent of their liability?
Schools, teachers, and other child care entities have special parental authority and responsibility over children in their care. This authority applies to all activities, whether inside or outside the school’s premises.
Those with authority and responsibility for an unemancipated minor are primarily and jointly liable for any damages caused by the minor’s actions or omissions.
