Lecture 2 - Quasi-Delict Flashcards
What is quasi-delict according to Article 2176 of the Civil Code?
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no 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.
What is the difference of quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) to culpa contractual and culpa criminal?
In culpa contractual, the foundation of the liability of the defendant is the contract. The obligation to answer for the damage that the plaintiff has suffered arises from breach of the contract by reason of defendant’s failure to exercise due care in its performance.
In culpa criminal on the other hand, the negligence arose from a criminal act. It affects public interests and punishes criminal act.
Culpa aquiliana refers to civil damages due to negligence. It repairs private damages through indemnification.
Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides the concurrence of action of quasi-delict. What does it state?
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damage twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
What is the ruling under Cangco v. Manila Railroad Company with regards to the liability of an employer to its employee?
When does this ruling apply?
One who places an automobile in the hands of a servant whom he knows to be ignorant of the method of managing such vehicle, is himself guilty of an act of negligence which makes him liable for all the consequences of his imprudence.
The obligation to make good the damage arises at the very instant that the unskillful servant, while acting within the scope of his employment, causes the injury. The liability of the master is personal and direct.
But if the master has not been guilty of any negligence, whatever in the selection and direction of the servant, he is not liable for any acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the contract between the master and the person injured.
