torts.pdf

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

1/41

San Beda College of Law215

MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

TORTS AND DAMAGES

I. TORTS

TORT An unlawful violation of private

right, not created by contract,and which gives rise to an actionfor damages.

It is an act or omission producingan injury to another, without anyprevious existing lawful relationof which the said act or omissionmay be said to be a naturaloutgrowth or incident.

NOTES:

An unborn child is NOT

entitled to damages. utthe bereaved parentsmay be entitled todamages, on damagesinflicted directly uponthem. !Geluz vs. CA, 2SCRA 802"

#efendants in tort cases

can either be natural orartificial being.

$orporations are civillyliable in the samemanner as naturalpersons.

Any person who has been

injured by reason of atortious conduct can suethe tortfeasor.

The primary purpose of a

tort action is to providecompensation to aperson who was injured

by the tortious conductof the defendant.

%reventive remedy is

available in some cases.

Classes of Torts:A. Negligent Torts. Intentional Torts$. &trict 'iability

A. NEGLIGENT TORTS

Involve voluntary acts or omissionswhich result in injury to otherswithout intending to cause the sameor because the actor fails to exercisedue care in performing such acts oromissions.

NEGLIGENCE The omission of that degree of

diligence which is re(uired by thenature of the obligation andcorresponding to the circumstances

of persons, time and place. !Article1173 Civil Code"

Kinds of Negligence:1. Culpa Contractual !contractualnegligence"

)overned by $$provisions onObligations and$ontracts,particularly Arts.**+ to **+- of the$ivil $ode.

2. Culpa Aquiliana!quasi-delict" )overned mainly by Art. *+/ of the

$ivil $ode

3. Culpa Criminal!criinal negligence" )overned by Art. 0/1 of the 2evised

%enal $ode.

NOTES:

The 0 3inds of negligence furnish

separate, distinct, and independentbases of liability or causes of action.

A single act or omission may give rise

to two or more causes of action.

Cula Contractual Cula A!uilianaThe foundation ofthe liability of thedefendantis the contract

It is a separatesource of obligationindependent of contract

CIVILLAWCOMMITTEECHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP : Alnaia Ha!!iman, Doro"#y $ayon S%BJECTHEADS: C#ri!"oer Rey 'ara!i(an )Per!on! and *amily Rel a"ion!+, Aleandro Ca!a-ar)Pro&er"y+, 'a. R#odora*errer)ill! and Succe!!ion+, Ian Dominic Pua)O-li(a"ion! and Con"rac"!+, S#a Elia# Dumama)Sale! and /ea!e+, Jo#n S"een0uiam-ao)PAT+, C#ri!"oer Ca-i(ao)Credi" Tran!ac"ion!+, /i(aya Ali&ao)Tor"! and Dama(e!+, An"#ony Pur(anan)/TD+,'a. Rica!ion Tu(adi )Con1lic"! o1 /a2+

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

2/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

In breach of contractcommitted throughthe negligence ofemployee, theemployer cannot

erase his primary anddirect liability byinvo3ing exercise ofdiligence of a goodfather of a family inthe selection andsupervision of theemployee.

In (uasi4delict thepresumptiveresponsibility for thenegligence of hisservants can be

rebutted by proof ofthe exercise of duecare in their selectionand supervision.

Cula A!uiliana Cri"eOnly involves privateconcern

Affect the publicinterest

The $ivil $ode by

means of indem4nification merelyrepairs the damage

The 2evised %enal

$ode punishes orcorrects criminal act

Includes all acts inwhich any 3ind offault or negligenceintervenes

%unished only if thereis a penal law clearlycovering them

'iability is direct andprimary in (uasi4delict

'iability of theemployer of theactor4employee issubsidiary in crimes

#$ASI%DELICT 5hoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being faultor negligence is obliged to pay forthe damage done. !Article *+/ $ivil$ode"

Essential Re!uisites for a !uasi%delictual action:*. Act or omission constituting fault or

negligence6. #amage caused by the said act or

omission6 and

0. $ausal relation between the damageand the act or omission.

Tests of Negligence*. #id the defendant in doing the

alleged negligent act use thereasonable care and caution whichan ordinarily prudent person wouldhave used in the same situation7 If not then he is guilty of

negligence.. $ould a prudent man, in the case

under consideration, foresee harm as

a result of the course pursued7

If so, it was the duty of the actorto ta3e precautions to guardagainst harm.

NOTES: Negligence is a conduct 4 the

determination of the existence ofnegligence is concerned with whatthe defendant did or did not do The state of mind of the actor isnot important6 good faith or use ofsound judgment is immaterial. Theexistence of negligence in a givencase is not determined by referenceto the personal judgment but by thebehavior of the actor in the situationbefore him. !!icart vs. Sit"#

Negligence is a conduct that createsan undue ris3 of harm to others.

The determination of negligence is a

(uestion of foresight on the part ofthe actor 8 9O2:&:AI'IT;. :ven if a particular injury was

not foreseeable, the ris3 is stillforeseeable if possibility ofinjury is foreseeable.

9orseeability involves the(uestion of %2OAI'IT;, that is,the existence of some real

li3elihood of some damage andthe li3elihood is of suchappreciable weight reasonably toinduce, action to avoid it.

Calculation of Ris& Interests are to be balanced only in

the sense that the purposes of theactor, the nature of his act and theharm that may result from action orinaction are elements to beconsidered.

Circu"stances to consider indeter"ining negligence: '(EST%GA()

*. Time. %lace0. :mergency

E"ergenc* ruleG$%$RA& R'&$(An individual whosuddenly finds himself in a situationof danger and is re(uired to actwithout much time to consider thebest means that may be adopted toavoid the impending danger is not


8/9/2019 torts.pdf

3/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

guilty of negligence if he fails tounderta3e what subse(uently andupon reflection may appear to be abetter solution.

$)C$!*+%( 5hen the emergencywas brought by the individual

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

4/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

a. ans, by the verynature of their wor3, areexpected to exercise thehighest degree of

diligence in the selectionand supervision of theiremployees.

b. Coon carriers arere(uired to exerciseextraordinary diligencein the vigilance overtheir passengers andtransported goods.!Article 1733 Civil Code".

6. Into3icationG$%$RA& R'&$( Bere intoxication is

not negligence, nor does the mere factof intoxication establish want of ordinarycare. ut it may be one of thecircumstances to be considered to provenegligence.$)C$!*+%( Cnder Art. 218 o9 t"eCivil Code, it is presumed that a persondriving a motor vehicle has beennegligent if at the time of the mishap,he was violating any traffic regulation.

7. Insanit* The insanity of

a person doesnot excuse himor his guardianfrom liabilitybased on (uasi4delict.

ases 9or "olding aninsane 6ersonlia:le 9or "istort(

a.5here one of two innocent personsmust suffer a loss, it should beborne by the one who occasionedit.

b. To induce those interested in theestate of the insane person torestrain and control him.

c.The fear that an insanity wouldlead to false claims of insanityand avoid liability.

8. 9o"en In determining the

(uestion of contributory

negligence in performing

such act, the age, sex,and condition of thepassengers arecircumstances

necessarily affecting thesafety of the passenger,and should beconsidered. !Cangco vs.anila Railroad Co. GR%o.1211, cto:er 1,118"

Although there is noune(uivocal statement ofthe rule, alenzuela vs.CA 23SCRA303 appearsto re(uire a differentstandard of care for

women under thecircumstances indicatedtherein.

=owever, #ean )uido$alabresi believes thatthere should be auniform standardbetween a men and awomen.

Ot/er +actors to Consider inDeter"ining Negligence:A. IOLATION O+ R$LES AND

STAT$TES*. &tatutes

G$%$RA& R'&$( Diolation of astatutory duty is N:)'I):N$: %:2 &:!Ci6riano vs. CA, 243SCRA711". 5hen the'egislature has spo3en, the standard ofcare re(uired is no longer what areasonably prudent man would do underthe circumstances but what the'egislature has commanded.$)C$!*+%S(

a. 5hen unusual conditions occur andstrict observance may defeat thepurpose of the rule and may evenlead to adverse results.

b. 5hen the statute expresslyprovides that violation of astatutory duty merely establishes apresumption of negligence.

NOTE: Rule as to 6roo9 o9 6ro5iatecauseG$%$RA& R'&$( %laintiff must showthat the violation of the statute is theproximate or legal cause of the injury

or that it substantially contributed


8/9/2019 torts.pdf

5/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

thereto. !Sanitar Stea &aundr, +nc.vs. CA 300SCRA20"$)C$!*+%( In cases where thedamage to the plaintiff is the damage

sought to be prevented by the statute.In such cases, proof of violation ofstatute and damage to the plaintiffmay itself establish proximate cause.!*eague vs. ;ernandez 1SCRA181".

.Administrative 2ule Diolation of a

rulepromulgatedbyadministrativeagencies is not

negligence perse but may be:DI#:N$: O9N:)'I):N$:.

0.%rivate 2ules of $onduct. Diolation of

rules imposedby privateindividuals!e.g.employers" ismerely a

%O&&I'::DI#:N$: O9N:)'I):N$:.

;. (RACTICE AND C$STOM $ompliance with the practice and

custom in a community will notautomatically result in a findingthat the actor is not guilty ofnegligence. Non4compliance withthe practice or custom in thecommunity does not necessarilymean that the actor was negligent.

In

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

6/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

0. The driver of a motorvehicle is presumednegligent if at the timeof the mishap, he was

violating any trafficregulation. !Article 218Civil Code"

-. G$%$RA& R'&$( %rimafacie presumption ofnegligence of thedefendant arises if deathor injury results from hispossession of dangerousweapons or substance.

$)C$!*+%( 5hen such possession oruse is indispensable to his occupation orbusiness. !Article 2188 Civil Code"

1. G$%$RA& R'&$(%resumption of negligence of thecommon carrier arises incase of loss, destructionor deterioration of thegoods, or in case ofdeath or injury of passengers.

$)C$!*+%(Cpon proof of exercise ofextraordinary diligence.

;. Res Isa Lo!uitur

E*"e t"ing or transaction s6eas9or itsel9.F

It is a rule of evidence peculiarto the law of negligence whichrecogniGes that prima facienegligence may be established inthe absence of direct proof, andfurnishes a substitute for specificproof of negligence.

Re!uisites of Res Isa Lo!uitor:*. The accident was of a 3ind which

ordinarily does not occur in theabsence of someone

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

7/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

. #uty to rescueG$%$RA& R'&$( There is no generalduty to rescue6 a person is not liable for(uasi4delict even if he did not help a

person in distress.$)C$!*+%S( A limited duty to rescueis imposed in certain cases@Abandonment of persons in danger andabandonment of oneures anot/er An owner cannot use his property

in such a manner as to injure therights of others. !Article 31Civil Code".

=ence the exercise of the rightof the owner may give rise to anaction based on (uasi4delict ifthe owner negligently exercisessuch right to the prejudice ofanother.

&ia:ilit o9 !ro6rietors o9 :uildings

New $ivil $ode include provisionsthat apply to proprietors of abuilding or structure whichinvolve affirmative duty of duecare in maintaining the same@Articles *? and *?*.

Third persons who suffereddamages may proceed onlyagainst the engineer or architector contractor if the damagereferred to in Articles *? and*?*should be a result of anydefect in construction.

Nevertheless, actions fordamages can still be maintainedunder Article *+/ for damagesresulting from proprietor

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

8/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

Actions for (uasi4delict can still bemaintained even if employee

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

9/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

the wrong part of the bodywhen another part wasintended.

#$o pron"e e!ience%a. :vidence as to the recogniGedstandards of the medical communityin the particular 3ind of case6 and

b. A showing that the physiciandeparted from this standard in histreatment.

&our elementsin meicalne"li"encecases: duty,breach, injuryand proximate

causation

:. 'IAI'IT; O9 =O&%ITA'& AN#$ON&C'TANT&

There is no employer4employeerelationship between thehospital and a physicianadmitted in the said hospital

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

10/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

0. IM($TED CONTRI;$TOR-NEGLIGENCE

Negligence is imputed if the actor isdifferent from the person who is

being made liable. The defendant will be subject to

mitigated liability even if theplaintiff was not himself personallynegligent but because the negligenceof another is imputed to theplaintiff.

It is applicable if the negligence wason the part of the person for whomthe plaintiff is responsible, andespecially, by negligence of anassociate in the transaction where hewas injured.

2. +ORT$ITO$S EENTS Essential requisites%

a. The cause of the unforeseen andunexpected occurrence, or of thefailure of the debtor to complywith his obligation, must beindependent of the human will6

b. It must be impossible to foreseethe event which constitutes theEcaso fortuito,F or if it can beforeseen, it must be impossible toavoid6

c. The occurrence must be such as torender it impossible for the debtorto fulfill his obligation in a normalmanner6 and

d. The obligor must be free from anyparticipation in the aggravation ofthe injury resulting to the creditor.

NOTE: 5hen an act of )od concurswith the negligence of defendant toproduce an injury, the defendant isliable if the injury would not haveresulted but for his own negligentconduct or omission. The wholeoccurrence is humaniGed and removedfrom the rules applicable to acts of)od. !%A!CR vs. CA ?13@"G$%$RA& R'&$( It is a completedefense and a person is not liable ifthe cause of the damage is a fortuitousevent.$)C$!*+%( It is merely a partialdefense and the courts may mitigatethe damages if the loss would haveresulted in any event !Art. 221/#Civil Code".

4. ASS$M(TION O+ RISK )olenti non fit in*uria@ One is not

legally injured if he has consentedto the act complained of or was

willing that it should occur. It is a complete defense. Elements(

a. The plaintiff must 3now thatthe ris3 is present6

b. =e must further understandits nature6 and that

c. =is choice to incur it is freeand voluntary.

+I,-S%

a. E3ress

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

11/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

:xample@ A person who main4

tained his house near a railroad trac3assumes the usual dangers attendantto the opera4tion of a locomotive.

!Rodrigueza vs. anila Railroad Co.,GR %o. 1488, %ov. 1, 121".

ii. Contractual Relations

There may be impliedassumption of ris3 if the plaintiffentered into a contractual relationwith the defendant. y entering intoa relationship freely and voluntarilywhere the negligence of thedefendant is obvious, the plaintiffmay be found to accept and consentto it. :HAB%':&@

a" The employees assume theordinary ris3s inherent in theindustry in which he is employed.

4 As to abnormal ris3s, theremust be cogent and convincingevidence of consent.

b" 5hen a passenger boards acommon carrier, he ta3es the ris3s

incidental to the mode of travel hehas ta3en.

iii. =angerous Activities

%ersons who voluntarilyparticipate in dangerous activitiesassume the ris3s which are usuallypresent in such activities. :HAB%':@ A professionalathlete is deemed to assume theris3s of injury to their trade.

iv. =e9endants negligence

5hen the plaintiff is aware ofthe ris3 created by the defendant

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

12/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

(ro3i"ate Cause That cause which in natural and

continuous se(uence, unbro3enby any efficient intervening

cause, produces the injury,without which the result wouldnot have occurred.

Re"ote Cause That cause which some

independent force merely too3advantage of to accomplishsomething not the natural effectthereof.

Nearest Cause

That cause which is the last lin3

in the chain of events6 thenearest in point of time orrelation.

%roximate cause is not

necessarily the nearest causebut that which is the procuringefficient and predominantcause.

Concurrent Causes

The actor is liable even

if the active andsubstantially

simultaneous operationof the effects of a thirdperson

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

13/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

The defendant

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

14/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

activeoperationlater.

Tests alied in t/e (/iliines: New $ivil $ode has a

chapter on #amageswhich specifies the 3indof damage for which thedefendant may be heldliable and the extent ofdamage to be awardedto the plaintiff.

Cause%in%fact Tests:*. ut4for test. &ubstantial

9actor test

0. N:&& test

(olic*test@Thedirectnessapproach isbeingappliedin thisjurisdict

ion.

NOTE:The definition of proximate causewhich includes the element of foresightis not consistent with the expressprovision of the Article of the New$ivil $ode6 a person may be held liablewhether the damage to the plaintiff maybe unforeseen.Cause and Conditions It is no longer practicable to

distinguish between cause andcondition.

The defendant may be liable even ifonly created conditions, if theconditions resulted in harm to eitherperson or property.

:HAB%':& of =angerous Conditions(*. Those that are

inherentlydangerous

. Those where aperson places athing which isnot dangerous initself in a

dangerousposition.

0. Those involvingproducts and

other thingswhich aredangerousbecause they aredefective.

Efficient Inter5ening Cause One which destroys the causal

connection between thenegligent act and the injury andthereby negatives liability.

There is NO efficient interveningcause if the force created by the

negligent act or omission haveeither@

*. 2emained active itself, or. $reated another force whichremained active until it directlycaused the result, or0. $reated a new active ris3 ofbeing acted upon by the active forcethat caused the result.

:HAB%':@ The medical findings, showthat the infection of the wound bytetanus was an efficient interveningcause later or between the time >avier

was wounded to the time of his death.!!eo6le vs. Rellin 77 !"il 1038"

NOTES:

A cause

is not anintervening causeif it wasalreadyinoperation at thetime thenegligentact iscommitted.

9oreseea

bleintervening causescannotbeconsider

ed


8/9/2019 torts.pdf

15/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

sufficientinterveningcauses.

Theintervention of unforeseen andunexpected causeis notsufficienttorelievethewrongdo

er fromconse(uences ofnegligence if suchnegligencedirectlyandproximatelycooperates with

theindependentcause intheresultinginjury.

CONTRI;$TOR- NEGLIGENCEA. (laintiff@s negligence is

t/e cause

%laintiff

8/9/2019 torts.pdf

16/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

lica

tive

effect,

that

it,

it

is

sufficient

to

bring

ab

out

the

effect

b

ut

his

neglig

ence

occurs

simultaneousl

y


8/9/2019 torts.pdf

17/41


MEMORYAIDINCIVILLAW

wit

h

the

defend

ant6

the

latt

er

torts.pdf

Documents