Finals Review Flashcards
Art. 2176
Art. 2176. 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 contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Elements of a quasi-delict
- Act or omission in breach of legal duty;
- Through fault or negligence;
- Causal relation between act or omission.
Art. 1173. (Negligence)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in 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. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201 paragraph 2, shall apply.
Art. 1173. par. 2. (diligence when law does not provide)
Art. 1173. par. 2. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
What is negligence?
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 .
What is the test of negligence?
Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence [PNR v. Brunty]
What are the degrees of negligence?
- Slight negligence - Failure to use great care or absence of that degree of care and vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use.
- Ordinary negligence - Failure to use ordinary care.
- Gross negligence - Failure to even use slight care; very great negligence, or want of even slight or scant care; or failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use.
Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitor
Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. [Africa v. Caltex]
When do we use res ipsa loquitor?
The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. [Layugan v. IAC]
What are the elements of res ipsa loquitur?
Elements of res ipsa loquitur:
- The thing caused the injury;
- The thing is under the control of the defendant or its agents;
- The event does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have it under management and control used proper care;
- The mere happening of the event which caused the injury affords reasonble evidence that the accident happened due to want of care;
- There is absence of an explanation.
[Casis citing Professional Services v. Agana].
What are the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of assumption of risk?
Requisites for Assumption of risk
- That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger
- That he understood and appreciated the risk from the danger
- That he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
Art. 2179 (contributory negligence)
Art. 2179. 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 are the requisites for the applicability for the doctrine of last clear chance?
Requisites for last clear chance:
- Both parties are negligent;
- The negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss;
- The one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss.
Emergency rule doctrine
Premise of emergency rule is that the occurrence of an emergency precludes the opportunity to make a decision in the face of an urgent situation, and thus there is absence of negligence.
Under the emergency rule, “one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence”. (McKee v IAC)
What is negligence per se?
Negligence per se - When the standard of care is fixed by law, failure to conform to such standard is negligence, negligence per se or negligence in and of itself, in the absence of a legal excuse.
What is the exception to the doctrine of negligence per se?
Exception: Failure to establish the causal link between the injury and the negligence. In Anonuevo v. CA, “The failure of the bicycle owner to comply with accepted safety practices, whether or not imposed by ordinance or statute, is not sufficient to negate or mitigate recovery unless a causal connection is established between such failure and hte injury sustained.”
What is a fortuitous event?
Fortuitous events - events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (Art. 1174)
What are the requisites in order to be exonerated from liability based on a fortuitous event?
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will.
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid.
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner.
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
What is the doctrine of attractive nuisance?
One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the hcild is technically a trespasser in the premises. [Hidalgo Enterprises Inc., v. Balandan.]
What is the exception to the rule on attractive nuisance?
Exception: Bodies of water; The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. [Hidalgo Enterprises Inc., v. Balandan.]
Reason for the exception: children are early instructed and are sufficiently presumed to know of the dangers of water.
What is a remote cause?
A remote cause is one, which would have been proximate cause, had there been no efficient intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.
May a remote cause be the basis of an action?
No. It cannot be made the basis of an action if such did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between ushc prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion (Manila Electric v. Remonquillo).
What is proximate cause?
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred (Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina).
Who are persons made liable for quasi-delicts?
- Tortfeasor (Art. 2176 and Art. 2181);
- Vicarious liability (Arts. 2180-2182)
- Parents
- Guardians
- Teachers
- Employers
- State
- Persons specifically made liable
- Possessor or user of animal (Art 2183);
- Owner of a motor vehicle (Art. 2184-2186);
- Manufacturers (Art. 2187);
- Provinces, cities and municipalities (Art. 2189; LGC Sec. 24);
- Proprietor of building, factory (Art. 2190);
- Liability of Hotels Inns and owners of premises;
- Head of the family (Art. 2193);
- Joint and Solidary Liability (Art. 2194)
