Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Passengers
do
not
contract
merely
for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by the
carrier's employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due
consideration. They are entitled to be protected against
personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and
abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a
passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier.
(Quasi-delict and
Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana
Culpa Criminal
Contractual
Negligence
is
merely incidental
incident to the
performance of an
obligation already
existing because of
the contract;
There
is
preexisitng obligation
(a contract, either
express or implied)
Proof
neededpreponderance of
evidence
As to defense
good father of
family defense
WHY?
Rule re
Respondeat
Superior/Command
Responsibility
/
Master and Servant
Rule
Presumption:
Aquiliana
N = is direct,
substantive,
independent
Criminal
N=
direct,
substantive,
independent of a
contract
No
pre-exisiting
obligation (except
the duty to be
careful in all human
actuations)
Preponderance of
evidence
No
pre-exisiting
obligation (except
the duty never to
harm others)
good father of
family = defense,
insofar
as
employers
or
guardians
are
concerned
Proof
of
guilt
beyond reasonable
doubt
good father of
family defense
Employees guilt =
Employers
civil
guilt, if the former
is insolvbent
Accused presumed
as innocent until
contrary is proved.
TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
Art. 1173 - The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
TEST: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, he is guilty
of negligence.
sinking a well at the power plant near the place where the caps
were found; and it also appears that at or about the time when
these caps were found, similarly caps were in use in the
construction of an extension of defendant's street car line to Fort
William McKinley. The caps when found appeared to the boys
who picked them up to have been lying for a considerable time,
and from the place where they were found would seem to have
been discarded as detective or worthless and fit only to be
thrown upon the rubbish heap.
No measures seems to have been adopted by the defendant
company to prohibit or prevent visitors from entering and
walking about its premises unattended, when they felt disposed
so to do. As admitted in defendant counsel's brief, "it is
undoubtedly true that children in their play sometimes crossed
the foot bridge to the islands;" and, we may add, roamed about at
will on the uninclosed premises of the defendant, in the
neighborhood of the place where the caps were found. There is
evidence that any effort ever was made to forbid these children
from visiting the defendant company's premises, although it must
be assumed that the company or its employees were aware of the
fact that they not infrequently did so.
WHEN APPLICABLE:
PICART vs SMITH
(Driver saw a kutsero not in his right lane) Although the horserider was originally at fault, it was the driver who had the last
clear chance to avoid the accident, by merely swerving while at
some distance away.
WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:
SPS ONG vs METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
FACTS:
Plaintiff spouses seek to recover from defendant, a
government-owned corporation, the sum of P50,000 as damages,
P5,000 as funeral expenses, and P11,000 as attorneys' fees, for
the death of their son Dominador Ong in one of the swimming
pools operated by defendant.
In the afternoon of July 5, 1952, at about 1:00 o'clock,
Dominador Ong, a 14-year old high school and his brothers
Ruben and Eusebio, went to defendant's swimming pools.
They went immediately to one of the small pools were the
water is shallow. When Domingo went to the adjoining building
to drink a bottle of Coke, his brothers Ruben and Eusebio went to
the bigger pool. Between 4:40-4:45 pm, Dominador Ong got
drowned in the big pool.
It must be noted that it was unknown how Dominador got
into the big pool. ( Even his brothers)There were measures taken
by the employees of Manila Water District to rescue Dominador:
The lifeguard Manuel Abano retrieved his body and applied
manual artificial respiration. The male nurse also came to render
assistance. They also injected camphorated oil and called Dr.
Ayuyao. However, upon arrival of Dr. Ayuyao, the boy was
already dead.
ISSUE: WoN the death of Dominador Ong can be attributed
to the negligence of the defendant/its employees
HELD: NO
RULING:
Petitioners contentions:
(1) That at the time Dominador was drowning, there was no
available lifeguard so as the help to save him came late.
And that when the brothers were shouting for help,
lifeguard Manuel Albano did not immediately respond to
the alarm/shout and that he was reading magazine and
only upon third call did he render retrieval.
This was belied by the written statements of the brothers
Ong emphasizing that after the lifeguards heard their shout
for help, they immediately dived into the pool to rescue
Dominador. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence to
show that appellee has taken all necessary precautions
to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent
accident. Thus, it has been shown that the swimming pools
The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in
their company.
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper
government office a bond executed by a government-controlled
corporation or office, to answer for damages to third persons. The
amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent
public official. (n)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of
the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease
only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from
the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by
the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article
2180 are applicable. (n)
10
11
US VS BONIFACIO (1916)
FACTS: Bonifacio was an engineer and was conducting the heavy
freight train one morningi n Batangas. The train had just
rounded a curve when Bonifacio saw a man (victim herein, Eligio
Castillo) walking along the railroad track. Bonifacio then
immediately blew his whistle twice; unknown to him, Castillo
was a deaf-mute. Noticing that Castillo did not step aside from
the track, Bonifacio tried to slow down the engine, but did not
succeed in stopping in time to avoid Castillo running down the
pedestrian, who, about that time, turned and attempted to cross
the track. Bonifacio was charged in the trial court with homicide
committed with reckless negligence and he was convicted of
homicide committed with simple negligence
ISSUE: WON BONIFACIO IS NEGLIGENT
HELD: NO. Court ruled that theres no way Bonifacio knew that
Castillo was deaf-mute. There is no obligation on an engine
driver to stop, or even to slow down his engine when he sees an
adult pedestrian standing or walking on or near the track, unless
there is something in the appearance or conduct of the person on
foot which would cause a prudent man to anticipate the
possibility that such person could not, or would not avoid the
possibility of danger by stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that may
properly be required of an engine driver under such
circumstances is that he give warningof hisapproach,byblowinghiswhistle
or ringing his bell until he is assured that the attention of the pedestrian
has been attracted to the oncoming train.
An engine driver may fairly assume that all persons walking or
standing on or near the railroad track, except children of tender
years, are aware of the danger to which they are exposed; and
that they will take reasonable precautions to avoid accident, by
looking and listening for the approach of trains, and stepping out
of the way of danger when their attention is directed to an
C.
Intoxication
12
RATIO:
A horse crossing the railroad tracks with not only the rails
but a portion of the ties themselves aboveground, stumbling
by reason of the unsure footing and falling, the vehicle
crashing against the rails with such force as to break a
wheel, this might be sufficient to throw a person from the
vehicle no matter what his condition; and to conclude that,
under such circumstances, a sober man would not have
fallen while a drunken man did, is to draw a conclusion
which enters the realm of speculation and guesswork.
D.
Insanity
US VS BAGGAY
- Defendant appeals the judgment where he was declared exempt
from criminal liability but was obliged to indemnify the heirs if
the murdered woman, Bil-liingan, in the sum of P1,000, to pay the
costs in the case and to be confined in an institution for the
insane until further order of the court.
13
14
EXPECTED CONDUCT
CUSI VS PHIL NATL RAILWAYS (1979)
FACTS:
and neck movement. For a long period, he also felt pain all
over his body.
15
16