TORTS

FEB 21 2018

PROOF OF CAUSATION

- FAULT or negligence must be the proximate cause of the damage. OTHERWISE, no

negligence.

PROXIMATE CAUSE

- Cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, producing the injury. And without which the result would not have occurred.
- “dominant cause” “immediate cause”

 DIFFERENT TEST
1. Cause in fact test (but-for test)
- In determining the proximate cause of the injury, First necessary to determine if
defendant’s negligence was the cause in fact.
- If the negligence of the defendant is the cause in fact, then we go to the policy test
-
2. Policy test
- What is now the limit of liability?
- Determine the extent of liability as a matter of policy.
- Yes you are negligent, but is the PLAINTIFF GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE? If yes, then liability will be mitigated.

(BATACLAN V MEDINA)

“bus that was running in the morning. Nawalan ng preno. That causes it to speed.nahulag sa
kanal. Turn turtled. The people there helped holding a torch, unknown to them the oil of the bus
spilled, which ignited the fire.

Ruling: Proximate cause is the bus losing the break and the bus turning turtle. Not the torch.
Hence, it is the negligence of the bus driver.

(LATONIO CASE)

“it is irresponsible for a mother to entrust the safety, even momentarily, of her eight-month-old
child to a mascot, not to mention a bird mascot in thick leather suit that had no arms to hold the
child and whose diminished ability to see, hear, feel, and move freely was readily apparent.
Moreover, by merely tapping the mascot and saying “pa-picture ta”, Mary Ann Latonio cannot be
said to have “told, informed and instructed the mascot that she was letting the mascot hold the
baby momentarily.” Releasing her grasp of the baby without waiting for any indication that the
mascot heard and understood her is just plain negligence on the part of Mary Ann.”
REMOTE CAUSE

(URBANO CASE)

- Some independent force merely took an advantage of to accomplish something, NOT

the natural effect thereof.
- Not a proximate cause of the damage.

” If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by tetanus germs at the
time, it is more medically probable that Javier should have been infected with only a mild cause
of tetanus because the symptoms of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking
incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should
have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second day from the onset time.
The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the appellant,
the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Consequently, Javier's wound
could have been infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the circumstance
surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but
not 20 to 22 days before he died.”

“There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for
failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of
Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. “

NEAREST CAUSE

- last link of the event.

CONCURRENT CAUSE

- Brought by omission of third person

- Combining them would produce injury. Each party who contributed is also liable.
- E. common carriers (driver and operator)

(FAR EASTERN SHIPPING V CA CASE)

“It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from
his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor.
Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without
which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under
the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the
duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same.”
“Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the
sole cause of the injury. Hence, where their concurring negligence resulted in injury or damage
to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for the resulting damage
under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.”

February 23, 2018

SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST

- Makes the negligence conduct in fact the cause of the damage, if it was a substantial
factor.
- If the accident would not have occurred, there had been no negligence on the part
defendant.
- The defendants act or omission is the substantial factor in bringing the damage or injury.
- Important: in cases of “concurrent causes” bcos there are 2 or more proximate causes.
Or certain causes that contributed to the accident. Hence need to determine if these
concurrent causes now are the substantial factors in bringing about the accident or
injury.

(PHILIPPINE RABBIT V IAC)

“Likewise, the bus cannot be made liable under the substantial factor test (that if the actor's
conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither
foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred
does not prevent him from being liable). Contrary to the findings of the appellate court, the bus
was travelling within the speed limit allowed in highways. He also had only a few seconds to
react to the situation. To require delos Reyes to avoid the collision is to ask too much from him.
Aside from the time element involved, there were no options available to him to have avoided
the collision. The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of jeepney driver Manalo
and spouses Mangune and Carreon. They all failed to exercise the precautions that are needed
precisely pro hac vice”

CAUSE v CONDITION TEST

- Traditionally, the Court separates cause and condition.

- Right now, they are the same. Bcos you created a condition which is a proximate cause.
- E.Gs
1. “Dangerous Conditions”: those INHERENTLY dangerous. Meaning the small
application of force or condition can release large forces that can cause harm.
2. those who places a thing which are not dangerous in itself, in a dangerous position.
3. Those involving product or other thing which are dangerous or defective. (the thing
shall not be dangerous, what makes it dangerous is the defect; it was erroneously
manufactured)
(PHOENIX V IAC)

“Dionisio is guilty of contributory negligent but the legal and proximate cause of the collision
was brought about by the way the truck was parked. The legal and proximate cause of the
accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck
was parked in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. The collision of Dionisio's car
with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's
negligence. We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that
the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care"
and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are
subject to mitigation by the courts”

EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

- “novus actus intervitus”

- Destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and the injury, thereby it
negates liability.
-