Torts and Damages – Reviewer for Quiz (September 8, 2018)
Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to a reckless
Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co.
Define Negligence
Negligence is the failure to observe the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury.
See also Article 1173 of the Civil Code.
Test of Negligence Based on Picart v. Smith
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Define Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have
occurred.
Does the negligence need to be the event closest in time to the injury?
NO. A cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury, if
the happening of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately
in the damage.
Requisite for Intervening Cause to be “Efficient”
An intervening cause, to be efficient, must be one not produced by a wrongful act
or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results.
Defined Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who voluntarily exposes
himself to an obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury
that may result therefrom.
Requisites for Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. He must further understand its nature; and
3. His choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.
Gross Negligence
disregard of the safety of persons or property; it evinces a thoughtless disregard
of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
When is a conduct reckless?
Conduct is reckless when it is an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a
situation in which a high degree of danger is apparent; it must be more than any
mere mistake resulting from inexperience, excitement, or confusion, and more
than mere thoughtlessness or inadvertence, or simple inattention.
What was the negligent act in this case?
Sarmiento v. Cabrido
Why was Santos considered grossly negligent?
Santos was a goldsmith for more than 40 years. Given his long experience in the
trade, he should have known that using a pair of pliers instead of miniature wire
saw in dismounting a precious stone like a diamond would have entailed an
unnecessary risk of breakage. Still, he did it. Thus, he was grossly negligent.
Francisco v. CBCI
What is Standard of Conduct?
Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and
place.
Degree of Diligence Required from Physically Disabled Persons
One who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a
reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use.
Why was Francisco negligent?
1. Francisco merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to determine
if he was authorized by CBCI. Francisco did not do any other background
check on the identity and authority of Bacsa.
2. Francisco already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, fearing
that they might be stolen property, yet he did not verify with CBCI the
authority of Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel.
3. Francisco relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were typewritten
on a half sheet of plain bond paper. If Francisco exercised reasonable
diligence, he should have asked for an official receipt issued by CBCI.
 4. The delivery to Francisco, as indicated in Petron’s invoice, does not show
that CBCI authorized Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel to Francisco.
Pacis v. Morales
Standard of Care for Gun Store Owners
A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under
his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as
dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of
dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to
prevent any injury being done thereby.
Makati Shangri-La v. Harper
Define Negligence
Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do.
Objective Test
The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or omission of the
tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is
similarly situated. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether or not
defendant-appellant, under the attendant circumstances, used that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinary reasonable person would have used in the
same situation.
Define Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces, the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred. More comprehensively,
proximate cause is that cause acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the
injury as natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
result therefrom.
Degree of Diligence for Hotels
The provisions of Articles 2000, 2001, and 2002 (all of which concerned the
hotelkeepers’ degree of care and responsibility as to the personal effects of their
guests) are also applicable, if not greater degree, when the lives and personal
safety of their guests are involved.
Article 2000
The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss
of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or
employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which
may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to
rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in
determining the degree of care required of him.
Article 2001
The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force
majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
Article 2002
The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the
guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the
things brought into the hotel.
PNB v. Santos (Leonen)
What does diligence of a good father of a family require?
The diligence of a good father of a family requires only that diligence which an
ordinary prudent man would exercise with regard to his own property.
Degree of Care Required from Banks
The bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with
meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
Define Fiduciary Relationship
Fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe high
standards of integrity and performance is deemed written into every deposit
agreement between a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking
requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father
of a family.
Li v. Soliman
Medical Malpractice Suit
Medical malpractice suit is a type of claim which a victim has available to him or
her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused
bodily harm.
What must the patient prove?
A patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either
failed to do something which a reasonable prudent health care provider would
have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonable prudent provider
would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.
What is the doctrine of informed consent?
The doctrine of informed consent is a general principle of law that a physician has
a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community
in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever
grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so
that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a
choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none
at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the
probable risks against the probable benefits.
Elements of a Malpractice Action based on the Doctrine of Informed Consent
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and
4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment.
Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital
Rule on Expert Witness
General Rule: To establish medical negligence, an expert witness is generally
required to define the standard of behavior by which the court may determine
whether the physician has properly performed the requisite duty toward the
patient.
Exception: When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the
need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
provides proof of negligence.
Essential Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone
is negligent;
2. The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the
exclusive control of the person charged; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured.
Adarne v. Aldaba
Degree of Diligence for Lawyers
An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the
business he undertakes to do.
Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or
mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the
best of his skill and knowledge.
Isaac v. A.L. Ammen
Degree of Diligence for Common Carriers
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
according to all the circumstances of each case.
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Principles Governing Liability of Common Carriers
1. The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
obligation. There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence
according to all circumstances of each case;
2. A carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a
very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances;
3. A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of
death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence; and
4. The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel.
Required Diligence in Case of Sudden Emergency
Where a carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that
he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken
into account, and he is not held to the same degree of care that he would
otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must
exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like
circumstances and conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best
judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his
part which renders the company liable.
Phoenix Construction v. IAC
“Passive and Static Condition”
If the defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the
damage possible, the defendant is said not to be liable.
Why did the Supreme Court not apply the doctrine of last clear chance?
The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery
to a plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last
clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so.
Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law last clear
chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of
contributory negligence as absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself
been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
Can the doctrine of last clear chance be used in determining the proximate cause?
NO. The task of a court, under 2179, is to determine whose negligence was the
legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily
an exercise of chronology or physics. The relative location in the continuum of
time of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s negligent acts or omissions, is only one
of the relevant factors that may be taken into account.
What is fundamentally important in determining proximate cause?
Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission
of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or
omission for the rest of the community.
Austria v. Court of Appeals
Compare with Phoenix Case
In this case,
Calalas v. Court of Appeals
Applicability of Proximate Cause
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not
in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing
liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party.
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
Section 1 – Burden of Proof
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law.
Section 2 – Conclusive Presumptions
The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
1. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
2. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
Section 3 (d) – Disputable Presumption
That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
Ong v. Metropolitan
Burden of Proof in Culpa Aquiliana Cases
The person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the damage is
caused by the fault or negligence of the person from whom the damage is claimed,
or of one of his employees.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
The negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of
defendant where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant
notwithstanding his negligence.
A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third
person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences of the accident.