Group 2 NATHANIEL Matinee Idol/Ngiting Tagumpay GUILLEN ANDREW The King of Rap ASPERIN

ART The Headband Boy 1/Gym Buddy ni Soc BELANDRES JOHN The Headband Boy 2/Gym Buddy ni Art SOCRATES Cena, Jose Emmanuel

DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES:

PLAINTIFFS OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

FORTUITOUS EVENT
ASSUMPTION OF RISK EFFECT OF DEATH, PRESCRIPTION & INVOLUNTARINESS

KINDS OF DEFENSES:
Complete

completely bars recovery

mitigates liability

Partial

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

Art.

2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.

CASE: PLDT VS. CA

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: PLDT VS.CA

Facts: Sps. Esteban were riding their jeep along the inside lane of Lacson Street where they resided. The jeep abruptly swerved from the inside lane, then it ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: PLDT VS.CA

Facts: Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while Antonio suffered a cut on his lips.

PLDT denies liability, contending that their injuries were due to their own negligence, and its independent contractor claims that it installed the necessary and appropriate signs.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

ISSUE: WON PLDT is liable for the injuries sustained by Sps. Esteban.

CASES: PLDT VS.CA

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: PLDT VS.CA

HELD: No The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there; hence, the presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident.

CASE: KIM vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: KIM VS PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

Facts: Kim (P) bought a passenger ticket for a flight to Iloilo from the defendant. They were shown how the straps could be tightened or loosened and instructed further not to touch anything in the plane

The plane landed on the waters of Guimaras Strait, in front of Iloilo, and taxied toward the beach until its pontoons struck bottom.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: KIM VS PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

Facts: While the banca that would take them to shore was approaching, Kim unfastened his straps and, not even putting on his hat, climbed over the door to the lower wing, went down the ladder to the pontoon and walked along the pontoon toward the revolving propeller.

Bohn and Garrett, consignees of the defendant saw Kim and, shouted frantically and motioned to him to keep away from it, but took no heed of them.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: KIM VS PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

Facts: The propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he threw up his arm, it was caught by the revolving blades thereof and so injured that it had be amputated.

Kim filed a complaint against the defendant but was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Manila absolving Philippine Aerial Taxi Co., hence, this appeal.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: KIM VS PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

ISSUE: WON defendant is liable for

the injuries sustained by Kim.

PLAINTIFF OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

CASES: KIM VS PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO.

Held: No

The plaintiff-appellant's negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident, and the subsequent amputation thereof were due entirely and exclusively to his own imprudence and not to the slightest negligence attributable to the defendant entity or to its agents. Therefore, he alone should suffer the consequences of his act.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
LEGAL BASIS:

Art. 2179 When the plaintiffs 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 defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
LEGAL BASIS: Art. 2214 In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. DEFINITION: Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection (Valenzuela vs. CA, G.R. No. 115024, February 7, 1996).

CASE: Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: Private respondent Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss. During the cocktails phase of the evening, Dionisio had taken "a shot or two" of liquor. Dionisio was driving his car and had just crossed the intersection of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets at Bangkal, Makati and was proceeding down General Lacuna Street.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: Dionisio purposely shut off his headlights even before he reached the intersection so as not to be detected by the police in the police precinct which he knew was not far away from the intersection and thereupon he saw a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters away from his car.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: The dump truck, owned by and registered in the name of petitioner Phoenix Construction Inc. was parked on the right hand side of General Lacuna Street, facing the oncoming traffic. The dump truck was parked askew in such a manner as to stick out onto the street, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: There were no lights nor any so-called "early warning" reflector devices set anywhere near the dump truck, front or rear. Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump truck

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: Dionisio commenced an action for damages claiming that the legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck. Phoenix and Carbonel, on the other hand, countered that the proximate cause of Dionisio's injuries was his own recklessness in driving fast at the time of the accident, while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on and without a curfew pass.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: Dionisio commenced an action for damages claiming that the legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck. Phoenix and Carbonel, on the other hand, countered that the proximate cause of Dionisio's injuries was his own recklessness in driving fast at the time of the accident, while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on and without a curfew pass.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

FACTS: The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Dionisio and against Phoenix and Carbonel. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the award of damages

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
ISSUE:
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

Whether or not private respondent Dionisio's negligence was only contributory.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

RULING: Private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory", that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

RULING: Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident. He was hurrying home that night and driving faster than he should have been. Worse, he extinguished his headlights at or near the intersection of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets and thus did not see the dump truck that was parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

RULING: Nonetheless, the legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked. The collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE RULING:

Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

The award of damages and taking into account the comparative negligence of private respondent Dionisio on one hand and petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix upon the other hand, the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. 20% of the damages shall be borne by private respondent Dionisi and only the balance of 80% needs to be paid by petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix who shall be solidarily liable therefor to the former.

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Imputed Contributory Negligence Applicable where the negligence was on the part of the person for whom the plaintiff is responsible

Case: Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co. ( 33 Phil 8 )

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Facts:

Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co.

The plaintiffs with three companions hired an automobile from the defendant Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. for a trip to Cavite Viejo. The automobile was hired by the driver of the taxicab company. On the return trip to Manila, while crossing the tracks of the railroad company, the automobile was struck by the train and the plaintiffs were injured.

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Facts:

Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co.

Plaintiffs sued both the railroad and the taxicab companies. The lower court absolved the railroad company and condemned the taxicab company to pay damages to the plaintiff.

Issue: Is the taxicab company liable?

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Held: Yes. Under Art. 1903 (2180) of the
Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co.

Old Civil Code, the master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant where he is the owner or director of a business or enterprise and the negligent acts are committed while the servant is engaged in his masters employment.

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Held:

Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co.

The taxicab company did not perform its full duty when it furnished a safe and proper care and a driver with a long and satisfactory record because it failed to comply with the requirement of supervision and instruction, including the promulgation of proper rules and regulations.

DEFENSES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Held:

Yamada vs. The Manila Railroad Company and Bachrach Garage and Taxicab Co.

Thus, the taxicab company has failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the carelessness of its servant, but it has made those negligent acts its own by having observed and known the custom of its drivers without disapproving it and without issuing instructions designed to supersede it.

FORTUITOUS EVENT

Also known as force majeure, caso fortuito or fuerza mayor Definition: An event which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen was inevitable. (Art. 1174 of the CC)

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Essential Characteristics of Fortuitous Event The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation, must be independent of human will, 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, The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfil his obligation in a normal manner, and The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. ( Enciclopedia Juridica Espanola)

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Nota Bene Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (Art. 1174 of CC)

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Nota Bene When an act of God combines or occurs with the negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission. The whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Nota Bene Nevertheless, it is believed that even if the defendant is still liable, courts may equitably mitigate the damages, if the loss, even in part, would have resulted in any event because of the fortuitous event. (Art. 2215 of CC)

Case: NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA, Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA 415 )

FORTUITOUS EVENT
NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA, Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA 415 )

Facts: The private respondents sought to recover actual and other damages for the loss of lives and the destruction to property caused by the inundation of the town of Norzagaray, Bulacan on Oct. 26-27, 1978. The flooding was purportedly caused by the negligent release by the defendants of water through the spillways of the Angat Dam (Hydroelectric Plant).

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Issue: Whether or not fortuitous event can be raised by NAPOCOR in order to be released from liability?

NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA, Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA 415 )

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Held: No. The Court declared that the proximate cause of the loss and damage sustained by the private respondents was the negligence of the petitioners. The petitioners were guilty of patent gross and evident lack of foresight, imprudence, and negligence in the management and operation of Angat Dam, and that the extent of the opening of the spillways, and the magnitude of the water released, are all but products of defendants-appellees headlessness, slovenliness and carelessness.

NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA, Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA 415 )

Case: Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

FORTUITOUS EVENT

Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

Facts: On October 11, 1989, powerful typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of Southeastern Colleges building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private respondents Dimaanos house. Private respondent alleged that the damage to their house rendered the same uninhabitable, forcing them to stay temporarily in others houses.

FORTUITOUS EVENT

Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

Facts: An ocular inspection of the destroyed building was conducted by a team of engineers headed by the city building official. The fourth floor of subject school building was declared as a structural hazard. Lower court awarded damages. CA affirmed but reduced damages.

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Issue:
Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

Whether or not the damage of the PRs house resulting from the impact of the falling portions of the school buildings roof ripped off was due to fortuitous event?

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Held: Yes. Private respondents, in establishing the culpability of petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned report submitted by a team which made an ocular inspection of petitioners school building after the typhoon. As the term imparts, an ocular inspection is one by means of actual sight or viewing. What is visual to the eye through is not always reflective of the real cause behind.

Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

FORTUITOUS EVENT
Held: Petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of its school building in question and that typhoon Saling was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by private respondents house.

Southeastern College Inc. vs CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )

Assumption of Risk
Consistent with latin maxim Volenti non fit Injuria

three elements/requirements: 1.) the person must know that the risk is present 2.) he must understand its nature 3.) his choice to incur it is free and voluntary

Assumption of Risk
exception to the last element: if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property.

Assumption of Risk
KINDS 1.) Express waiver of the right to recover 2.) Implied Assumption

Assumption of Risk 1.) Express Waiver

the "express consent perspective" contemplates the most basic sense of the doctrine. The plaintiff, in advance, waived his right to recover damages from the negligent act of the defendant. The plaintiff take his chances from a known risk arising from what the defendant did or left undone.

Assumption of Risk Example:

Plaintiff was warned by the defendant that it is still dangerous to take his vehicle out of the repair shop. But the Plaintiff insist of using the vehicle. There is an express assumption of risk.

Assumption of Risk Exception:

According to the Supreme Court, a person cannot contract away his right to recover damages resulting from negligence. Even if such waiver was made, it is against public policy and should not be allowed.

Case (Pleasantville Development Corp vs. CA

Assumption of Risk
Facts: A buyer of a subdivision lot erroneously built a house on another's lot because he was told to do so by PDC. One of the defense invoked by the corporation is that a waiver in the Contract of Sale of the right to recover damages based on negligence.

Case (Pleasantville Development Corp vs. CA

Assumption of Risk
Issue: Whether there is a valid waiver of right.
Case (Pleasantville Development Corp vs. CA

Held: The waiver contemplated here is the waiver of the right to recover before the negligent act was committed. It cannot be stipulated in the contract that one is barred from claiming damages based on negligence.

Assumption of Risk 2.) Implied Assumptions

a.) Dangerous Condition A person who knowing that he is exposed to dangerous condition, voluntarily assumes the risk of such dangerous condition may not recover from the defendant who maintained such dangerous condition.

Assumption of Risk Example

Spectators of sports events, customers at amusement parks, guests who find dangerous conditions when they enter business premises are deemed to have assumed the risk ordinarily attendant thereto, so long proper warning was made.

Assumption of Risk b.) Contractual Relations

by entering into a relationship freely and voluntarily where the negligence of the defendant is obvious, the plaintiff may be found to accept and consent to it.

Assumption of Risk Example:

A was hired by B as a caretaker of his carabaos at fixed compensation. A was attacked by one of them and died because of that.

Assumption of Risk c.) Dangerous Activities

Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous activities assume the risks usually present in such activity.

Example: Professional athletes.

Assumption of Risk d.) Defendant's negligence

When the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the defendant's negligence, yet he voluntarily decided to proceed to encounter it.

Example:
If the plaintiff has been supplied with a product which he knows to be unsafe, he is deemed to have assumed the risk of using such unsafe product.

EFFECT OF DEATH

Death of the defendant will not extinguish the obligation based on quasi-delict The case will continue through the legal representative who will substitute the deceased (sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court) Prescription An action based on quasi-delict prescribes in four years from the date of the accident. (Article 1146 Civil Code)

RELATIONS BACK DOCTRINE

An act done at one time is considered by fiction of law to have been done at some antecedent period. (Allied Banking Corp vs. CA, 1989) EXAMPLE: A doctor negligently transfused blood to a patient that was contaminated with HIV. If the effect became apparent only after five (5) years, the four (4) year prescriptive period should commence only when it was discovered.

INVOLUNTARINESS

It is a complete defense in quasi-delict cases and the defendant is therefore not liable if force was exerted on him. (Aquino, Torts and Damages) EXAMPLE: When the defendant was forced to drive his vehicle by armed men. He was, at pain of death, forced to drive at a very fast clip because the armed men were escaping from the policemen. The defendant cannot be held liable, if a bystander is hit as a consequence

Thank you!