Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
automotive Case Digest Culture Current Events Opinion economic food security Technology transportation
M o n d a y, J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 4 Older Posts
► 2019 (1)
LRT vs. NAVIDAD ► 2018 (6)
A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This ► April (1)
obligation exists not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought to be in pursuance to then contract ► March (2)
of carriage.
► February (5)
Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees ► January (2)
or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise
► 2013 (11)
of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been
at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of
the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force
majeure.
Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee
Escartin is established, the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of its employees.
Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent
contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the
injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even
under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted
the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the
rules on tort to apply.
Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages. The award was deleted/\.
Posted by Dick S. O'Rosary at 6:30 AM
Labels: case brief, Case Digest, security agency, Torts and Damages, train accident, vicarious liability
No comments:
Post a Comment
Publish Preview