Taking on the Feds: Issues, Cases and Defenses in Proceedings Against the United States
Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
-
Upload
art-belandres -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
1/73
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
2/73
Group 2
NATHANIEL Matinee Idol/Ngiting Tagumpay
GUILLEN
ANDREW The King of RapASPERIN
ART The Headband Boy 1/Gym Buddy ni Soc
BELANDRES
JOHN The Headband Boy 2/Gym Buddy ni Art
SOCRATES
Cena, Jose Emmanuel
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
3/73
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
4/73
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE
CASES: PLAINTIFFS OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
FORTUITOUS EVENT
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
EFFECT OF DEATH, PRESCRIPTION &INVOLUNTARINESS
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
5/73
KINDS OF DEFENSES:
Complete completely
bars recovery
Partial mitigates liability
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
6/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own
negligence was the immediate and proximatecause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages.
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
7/73
CASE: PLDT VS. CA
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
8/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSEFacts:
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.
CASES:
PLDT VS.CA
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
9/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSEFacts:
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.
CASES:
PLDT VS.CA
O
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
10/73
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
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
11/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE HELD: NoThe 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.
CASES:
PLDT VS.CA
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
12/73
CASE: KIM vs.
PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXICO.
PLAINTIFF OWN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
13/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSEFacts: 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.
CASES:
KIM VS
PHILIPPINE
AERIAL
TAXI CO.
PLAINTIFF OWN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
14/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSEFacts: 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.
CASES:
KIM VS
PHILIPPINE
AERIAL
TAXI CO.
PLAINTIFF OWN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
15/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSEFacts: 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.
CASES:
KIM VS
PHILIPPINE
AERIAL
TAXI CO.
PLAINTIFF OWN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
16/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
ISSUE: WON defendant is liable for
the injuries sustained by Kim.
CASES:
KIM VS
PHILIPPINE
AERIAL
TAXI CO.
PLAINTIFF OWN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
17/73
PLAINTIFF OWN
NEGLIGENCE AS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE Held: No
The plaintiff-appellant's negligence alone was thedirect 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.
CASES:
KIM VS
PHILIPPINE
AERIAL
TAXI CO.
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
18/73
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.
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
19/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCELEGAL 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).
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
20/73
CASE: Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs.IAC,
G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
21/73
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
22/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
23/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
24/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
25/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
26/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
27/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCEFACTS:
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
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
28/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent
Dionisio's negligence was only
contributory.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
29/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE 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).
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
30/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE RULING:
Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident.
He was hurrying home that night and driving
faster than he should have been. Worse, heextinguished 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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
31/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE RULING:
Nonetheless, the legal and proximate cause of
the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was
the wrongful or negligent manner in whichthe 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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
32/73
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE RULING:
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.
Phoenix
Construction,
Inc. vs. IAC
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
33/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Imputed Contributory Negligence
Applicable where the negligence was on the part of the person for
whom the plaintiff is responsible
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
34/73
Case: Yamada vs. The Manila
Railroad Company and Bachrach
Garage and Taxicab Co. ( 33 Phil 8
)
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
35/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Facts:The plaintiffs with three companions hired an
automobile from the defendant Bachrach
Garage & Taxicab Co. for a trip to CaviteViejo. 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.
Yamada vs.
The ManilaRailroad
Company and
Bachrach
Garage and
Taxicab Co.
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
36/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Facts:Plaintiffs sued both the railroad and the taxicab
companies. The lower court absolved the
railroad company and condemned thetaxicab company to pay damages to the
plaintiff.
Issue: Is the taxicab company liable?
Yamada vs.
The ManilaRailroad
Company and
Bachrach
Garage and
Taxicab Co.
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
37/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Held: Yes. Under Art. 1903 (2180) of theOld Civil Code, the master is liable for the
negligent acts of his servant where he is the
owner or director of a business orenterprise and the negligent acts are
committed while the servant is engaged in
his masters employment.
Yamada vs.
The ManilaRailroad
Company and
Bachrach
Garage and
Taxicab Co.
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
38/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Held:The taxicab company did not perform its full
duty when it furnished a safe and proper
care and a driver with a long andsatisfactory record because it failed to
comply with the requirement of supervision
and instruction, including the promulgation
of proper rules and regulations.
Yamada vs.
The ManilaRailroad
Company and
Bachrach
Garage and
Taxicab Co.
DEFENSES IN
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
39/73
DEFENSES IN
CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE Held:Thus, the taxicab company has failed to rebut
the presumption of negligence arising from
the carelessness of its servant, but it hasmade 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.
Yamada vs.
The ManilaRailroad
Company and
Bachrach
Garage and
Taxicab Co.
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
40/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
Also known asforce majeure, caso fortuito orfuerza mayor
Definition: An event which could not be foreseen or which
though foreseen was inevitable. (Art. 1174 of the CC)
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
41/73
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 thedebtor 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)
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
42/73
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)
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
43/73
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.
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
44/73
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)
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
45/73
Case: NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA,
Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA415 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
46/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
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).
NAPOCOR, et al
vs. CA,
Gaudencio C.
Rayo, et al ( 222
SCRA 415 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
47/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
Issue:
Whether or not fortuitous eventcan be raised by NAPOCOR in
order to be released from
liability?
NAPOCOR, et alvs. CA,
Gaudencio C.
Rayo, et al ( 222
SCRA 415 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
48/73
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 lackof 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 alvs. CA,
Gaudencio C.
Rayo, et al ( 222
SCRA 415 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
49/73
Case: Southeastern College Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
50/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
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.
SoutheasternCollege Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR
No. 126389 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
51/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
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.
SoutheasternCollege Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR
No. 126389 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
52/73
FORTUITOUS EVENT
Issue:
Whether or not the damage of the
PRs house resulting from theimpact of the falling portions of
the school buildings roof ripped
off was due to fortuitous event?
SoutheasternCollege Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR
No. 126389 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
53/73
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 ofpetitioners 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.
SoutheasternCollege Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR
No. 126389 )
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
54/73
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 theproximate cause of the damage suffered by
private respondents house.
SoutheasternCollege Inc. vs
CA, et al ( GR
No. 126389 )
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
55/73
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
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
56/73
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
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
57/73
KINDS
1.) Express waiver of the right to recover
2.) Implied Assumption
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
58/73
1.) Express Waiver
the "express consent perspective" contemplates the most basic
sense of the doctrine.
The plaintiff, in advance, waived his right to recover damagesfrom 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
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
59/73
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 anexpress assumption of risk.
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
60/73
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 againstpublic policy and should not be allowed.
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
61/73
Case (Pleasantville
Development Corp vs. CA
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
62/73
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 thecorporation is that a waiver in the
Contract of Sale of the right to recover
damages based on negligence.
Assumption of Risk
Case(Pleasantville
Development
Corp vs. CA
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
63/73
Issue: Whether there is a valid waiver of
right.
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
Case(Pleasantville
Development
Corp vs. CA
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
64/73
2.) Implied Assumptionsa.) 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
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
65/73
ExampleSpectators of sports events, customers at amusement
parks, guests who find dangerous conditions when they
enter business premises are deemed to have assumed therisk ordinarily attendant thereto, so long proper warning
was made.
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
66/73
b.) Contractual Relationsby 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
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
67/73
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
68/73
c.) Dangerous ActivitiesPersons who voluntarily participate in dangerous
activities assume the risks usually present in such
activity.
Assumption of Risk
Example: Professional athletes.
Assumption of Risk
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
69/73
d.) Defendant's negligenceWhen the plaintiff is aware of the risk created
by the defendant's negligence, yet hevoluntarily decided to proceed to encounter it.
Assumption of Risk
If the plaintiff has been supplied with a productwhich he knows to be unsafe, he is deemed to have
assumed the risk of using such unsafe product.
Example:
EFFECT OF DEATH
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
70/73
EFFECT OF DEATH
Death of the defendant will not extinguish the obligation basedon 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
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
71/73
DOCTRINE
An act done at one time is considered by fiction of law to havebeen 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
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
72/73
INVOLUNTARINESS
It is a complete defense in quasi-delict cases and the defendant istherefore 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 ishit as a consequence
-
7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases
73/73
Thank you!