chapter 4- defenses in negligence cases

7/28/2019 Chapter 4- Defenses in Negligence Cases

1/73


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


3/73


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


5/73

KINDS OF DEFENSES:

Complete completely

bars recovery

Partial mitigates liability


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.


7/73

CASE: PLDT VS. CA


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


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


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


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


12/73

CASE: KIM vs.

PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXICO.

PLAINTIFF OWN


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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).


20/73

CASE: Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs.IAC,

G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987


21/73


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


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


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


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


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


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


28/73

CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent

Dionisio's negligence was only

contributory.

Phoenix

Construction,

Inc. vs. IAC


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


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


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


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


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


34/73

Case: Yamada vs. The Manila

Railroad Company and Bachrach

Garage and Taxicab Co. ( 33 Phil 8

)

DEFENSES IN


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


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


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


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


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.


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)


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)


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)


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.


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)


45/73

Case: NAPOCOR, et al vs. CA,

Gaudencio C. Rayo, et al ( 222 SCRA415 )


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 )


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 )


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 )


49/73

Case: Southeastern College Inc. vs

CA, et al ( GR No. 126389 )


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 )


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.


CA, et al ( GR

No. 126389 )


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?


CA, et al ( GR

No. 126389 )


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.


CA, et al ( GR

No. 126389 )


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.


CA, et al ( GR

No. 126389 )

Assumption of Risk


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


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


57/73

KINDS

1.) Express waiver of the right to recover

2.) Implied Assumption

Assumption of Risk

Assumption of Risk


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


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


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


61/73

Case (Pleasantville

Development Corp vs. CA

Assumption of Risk


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


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


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


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


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


67/73

Assumption of Risk


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


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


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


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


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


73/73

Thank you!

chapter 4- defenses in negligence cases

Documents