NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE

Group 2 Group 2

Rasul AmpuanRasul AmpuanRomeo Dela CruzRomeo Dela Cruz

Lester MontillaLester Montilla

NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE“the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person thatdegree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,whereby such other person suffers injury.”

- - Corliss v. The Manila Railroad Company, 137 Phil. 101, 107.

NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCExxx xxx there is no hard and fast rule wherebysuch degree of care and vigilance is calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

- Cusi v. Philippine National Railways, No. L-29889, 31 May 1979

NEGLIGENCENEGLIGENCE

It is relative or comparative, and not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the reasonable degree of care and vigilance which the surrounding circumstances reasonably impose. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care.

- De leon, Torts and Damages 2012 Edition, p. 170

Test of determining NegligenceTest of determining Negligence

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation?  If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

- Delsan Transport Line Inc vs C&A Construction Inc.

GAID VS PEOPLE, GR No. 157658GAID VS PEOPLE, GR No. 157658

The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued?

GAID VS PEOPLE, GR No. 157658GAID VS PEOPLE, GR No. 157658

If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain fromthat course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed bythe ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.

Instances When Negligence is presumed

1. The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur meaning “the action speaks for itself”

The act ordinarily would not occur without someone’s negligence or in this instance the accident probably did not occur without someone’s negligence.

.

Africa vs. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448

FACTS: Fire broke out of unknown origin at the Caltex Service Station. It started while gasoline was being hosed form a tank into the underground storage. The fire spread to several houses including the house of the plaintiff. The cause of the fire was not shown by evidence.

Africa vs. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448

ISSUE: Whether or not, without proof of such cause and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply to presume negligence on the part of the defendant.

Africa vs. Caltex, 16 SCRA 448Held: Caltex was liable. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were the appellees and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care. Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or his employees and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evident, in the absence of explanation by defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Conditions necessary for the application of res ipsa loquitur:

• The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of one’s negligence;

• It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant;

• It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.

2. The negligence of the employer under Article 2180 of NCC in the selection or supervision of his employees in contrast with the Anglo-American doctrine of RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR where the negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the employer.

Instances When Negligence is presumed

3. In motor vehicle mishaps, it is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. (Article 2184 par. 1, NCC)

Instances When Negligence is presumed

4. The defendant is presumed negligent if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances such as firearms and poisons, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (Article 2188, NCC)

Instances When Negligence is presumed

5. The possessor of an animal or whoever may use the same is responsible for the damages which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. (Article 2183, NCC)

Instances When Negligence is presumed

The Supreme Court further explained in the case of Vestil vs. IAC, G.R. No. 7443; The Court said that what must be determined is the POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL, REGARDLESS OF ITS OWNERSHIP. (Emphasis supplied)

6. In case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, or in case of death of or injuries to passengers, the common carriers are presumed to be negligent unless they can prove that they exercised extraordinary diligence or utmost diligence as the case may be. (Articles 1733 and 1756, NCC)

Instances When Negligence is presumed

Criminal Negligence

Under some criminal law  statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that “grossly deviates” from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct

Criminal Negligence

Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.

Is Criminal Negligence Different From Civil Negligence?

Yes- the standard for proving criminal negligence is somewhat higher than that for civil negligence.  Civil negligence is usually defined as a failure to fulfill one’s duty, or a failure to follow the normal standards of conduct for a reasonable person. 

Criminal Negligence vs Civil Negligence

In comparison a finding of criminal negligence requires that the person exercised a “gross” or “aggravated” deviation from acceptable societal norms.  In other words, the conduct must have some element of an unjustifiable disregard of standards in order for it to be considered criminal. 

Criminal Negligence vs Civil Negligence

Part of this difference also lies in the way that criminal cases are tried in comparison to civil negligence claims.  In a criminal case, it is the state that is filing the claim against the defendant.  Criminal cases involve punishments such as fines or jail time for the purpose of penalizing the defendant.  Basically, the conduct must be sufficiently disruptive or damaging in order to justify a punishment by the state. 

res ipsa loquitur

Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened

res ipsa loquitur

Examples:

a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall.

res ipsa loquitur

Examples:

b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room caused the damage.

Captain-of-the-Ship Doctrine

is a principle of medical-malpractice law, holding a surgeon liable for the actions of assistants who are under the surgeon's control but who are employees of the hospital, not the surgeon.

Captain-of-the-Ship Doctrine

The surgeon as "the captain of the ship," is directly responsible for an alleged error or act of alleged negligence because he or she controls and directs the actions of those in assistance. This common law doctrine is often used in operating room situations.

Professional Services Inc vs Agana, GR No. 126297

Facts: Two pieces of gauze were left inside the patient’s body after a hysterectomy and this fact was concealed by the lead doctor who performed the surgical operation. After a couple of days, the patient complained of excruciating pain in her anal region. A recto-vaginal froluta had formed in her reproductive organs which forced stool to excrete through the vagina. Six months later, the patient underwent another surgery performed by another doctor.

Professional Services Inc vs Agana, GR No. 126297

Issue: WON the operating surgeon was liable for negligence and malpractice.

Professional Services Inc vs Agana, GR No. 126297

Ruling: Captain of the Ship Rule Applies.

The operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the operation. Their duty is to obey his orders.

Importance of determining the proximate cause in an accident

Proximate Cause- is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

1. The “but for” or sine qua non rule.

•The defendant’s conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it.

•The defendant’s conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing it about. Whether it was such a substantial fact is for the court to determine.

2. The foreseeability test. This is applied in culpa contractual

•Where the particular harm sustained was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s conduct, his act or omission is the legal cause thereof.

Astudillo vs. Manila Electric Co. 55 Phil. 427

The defendant placed an electric light pole with wires close enough to the public place that a person could reach the wires. This resulted in the death of a boy. The defendant was held negligent in placing the pole and wires as to be within proximity to a place frequented by many people with the possibility ever present of one of them losing his life by coming in contact with a highly charged and defectively insulated wire.

3. Cause and condition test. •If the defendant has created only a passive, static condition which made the damage possible, he is not liable.

4. Natural and probable consequences test.The defendant is liable only if the harm suffered is the natural and probable consequence of his act. (Article 2202, NCC)

Defenses

1.Negligence of the plaintiff or of another

•The proximate cause of the loss was the negligence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be made to recover since his negligence was the principal cause of the loss.•If the negligence of the plaintiff is merely contributory, then, the courts can make the defendant liable but the courts would temper the award of damages.(Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, 7 Phils 359)

Defenses

2. Doctrine of last clear chance

•It means that a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent act of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for consequences of the accident.

Defenses

3. Contributory negligence of the offended party

•Not a complete defense. Where the negligence contributes only to his non-injury. It can only cause the reduction of the damages that may be awarded.

Defenses

4. Defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

•When the law does not specify the degree of diligence that may be exerted or required in the performance of an obligation, that which is expected of a good father of a family is required. (Article 1173, NCC)•In Culpa Contractual, due diligence is not a defense at all. Since in Articles 1733 and 1756 which expressly requires the carrier to exercise the utmost diligence or extraordinary diligence in the transport of goods or persons or both.

Defenses

5. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk

•If the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk from a known danger, he is barred from recovery of damages under the principle of volunti non fit injuria.

Defenses

6. Prescription can also be interposed as a defense

•An action based on quasi-delict prescribes in four (4) years. (Article 1146, NCC)

•Prescriptive period begins to run from the date the quasi-delict occurred or was committed.

Defenses

7. The principle of Res Judicata

•Has already been judicially decided

•The principle of res judicata is not a defense per se, the same is however proper when the civil action is anchored on the acts or omissions complained of as a felony.

Sources: Albano , E.S. & Alcantara, S. (2001). Torts and Damages. Quezon City, Philippines. The Philippines Labor Relations Journal (PLRJ).

Any Questions?