Assignment of Syra Vicenta S Suer in Torts

1. What is the effect of Contributory negligence? Does it serve as a bar to claim

damages on the part of the plaintiff?
The effect of contributory negligence is that if the plaintiff contributes to the
principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover
damages. However, if it is in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only
to his own injury, he may recover damages from the defendant responsible less
the sum deemed suitable equivalent for his own imprudence. It will only serve as
a bar to recovery of damages on the part of the plaintiff if the proximate cause of
the injury is on the part of the plaintiff himself.
2. What is the difference between proximate cause and immediate cause?
Proximate cause is such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural
order of events, and under the particular circumstance surrounding the cause,
would necessarily produce the event. While immediate cause is the final act in a
series of provocations leading to a particular result or event, directly producing
such result without the intervention of any further provocation. For example, if an
individual who was driving while intoxicated crashed his or her car and was killed,
the immediate cause of death was the crash. The proximate cause, however,
was the individual's state of intoxication.
3. What is the Doctrine of Damnum Absque Injuria? How does it relate to the
concept of proximate cause?
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or
harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases the
consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no
remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal
injury or wrong. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In
relating the maxim to the concept of proximate cause, there must first be a
breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before
damages may be awarded and the breach of such duty should be the proximate
cause of the injury.
4. Does the Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria applicable if the victim is inside her
house?
Yes, the Doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria is applicable even if the victim is
inside her house for as long as the victim herself knows and comprehends the
peril and voluntarily exposes herself to it. For instance, the victim owns a house
in a golf course. She knows that her house will be frequently hit by missed golf
balls, but still she placed a plate-glass window. She cannot recover damages
against the golfer who has her glass windows shattered by wayward golf shots.
5. Give at least five instances/examples whereby a victim assumed the risk of
personal injury.
a. A caretaker of a property with an untamed dog. He knows that the dog
can hurt anyone including himself if ever it would escape from his chain but still
the caretaker tried to capture the untamed dog when it escaped, he cannot claim
damages against the owner of the dog.

b. A group of young boys who had trespassed on the railway of the MRT
was hit by a train. They cannot claim damages against the company because
they voluntarily accepted the risk by breaking through it.
c. A tourist who despite of a travel ban in Zamboanga City went to a resort
and was abducted by terrorists. He assumed the risk of being held hostage.
d. A man who crossed C5 Avenue despite the No Crossing sign was hit
by incoming vehicles. His act of crossing the major thoroughfare constitutes
negligence because it was prohibited by law. It precludes any recovery for any
damages suffered by him from the accident.
e. A burglar who had trespassed a private property enclosed with electric
fence despite the No Trespassing and Warning, Electric Fence signs. He
cannot claim damages against the owner of the property.