KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) Torts: 1) US vs barias Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demands The diligence with which the law requires the individuals at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and with the importance of the act which he is to perform 2) Samson vs Dioniso et al any person who without authority constructs a bank or dike , stopping the flow or communication between a creek or a lake and a river, thereby causing loss or damage to a third party who, like the rest of the residents, is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the stream or lake, shall be liable to the payment of an indemnity for loss and damage to the injured party 3) Uy Piaco vs Osmena The defendant sheriff in disregarding the claim of the plaintiff's attorney in fact and maintaining the attachment on the property of the said plaintiff, the same not being subject to the liability of the Chinese debtors of Martina Rodriguez, has injured the said plaintiff by depriving him of the possession of his personal property for about seventy-five days, and in consequence thereof is bound to repair the injury caused, in accordance with the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code, which treats of obligations arising from fault or negligence. 4) Elcano vs Hill the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character whether voluntary or not a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the victim do not recover damages on both scores. Vicarious liability of the parents on account of a delict committed by their minor child is not extinguished by the fact that the said child who is living with and dependent upon said parent is married.

o Reason behind the joint and solidary liability of both parents with their offending child under 2180 is that it is the obligation of the parents to supervise their minor children in order to prevent them for causing damage to third persons. 5) Tenchavez vs Escano invalid divorce entitles innocent consort to recover damages 6) Bacolod-Murcia milling co vs first farmers milling doing of an act, like extension of credit, which is lawful, does not render one liable for tort simply because the act enables another to accomplish a wrong. 7) Vasquez vs De borja

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) the fault and negligence referred to in articles 1101-1104 of the civil code are those incidental to the fulfillment or nonfulfillment of a contractual obligation; while the fault or negligence referred to in article 1902 is the culpa aquiliana of the civil law, homologous but not identical to tort of the common law, which gives rise to an obligation independently of any contract the fact that the corporation, acting thru its manager, was guilty of negligence in the filfillment of the contract, did not make the agent principally or even subsiiarily liable for such negligence. 8) air france vs carrascoso

Deficiency in a complaint with regard to averment of moral damages may be cured by evidence 9) schimitz tansport vs transport ventures a customs broker may be regarded as a common carrier

o common carrier = persons engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both by land ,water or air for compensation , offering their services to the public private carrier is under no duty to observe extraordinary diligence, it is still required to observe ordinary diligence Quasi Delict = when an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contact existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply Liability of a common carrier and independent contractor is solidary 10) singson v BPI existence of a contract between parties is not a bar to the commission of a tort by the one against another 11) araneta vs De joya company vice president who signed payroll checks for the salary of employee whose travel abroad is unauthorized is guilty of quasi-delict and liable for expenses incurred by the company for the trip contractual employee may be guilty of tort against the company 12) far east bank vs manila road in culpa contractual , moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or malice to breach the contract

o bad faith in this context includes gross, but not simple negligence o malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity

a quasi-delcit can be the cause for breaching a contract that might thereby permit the application of applicable principles on tort even where there is a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff and defendant o the test (whether a tort can be deemed to underlie the breach of contract) can be stated where, w/o a pre-existing contract

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) between two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of the quasi-delcit provisions to the case. 13) cangco vs manila road failure to perform a contract cannot be excused upon the ground that the breach was due to negligence of a servant of the obligor and that the latter exercised due diligence in the selection and control of the servant the distinction between negligence as the source of an obligation (culpa aquiliana) and negligence in the performance of a contract (culpa contractual) rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary. duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation. 14) Rodrigueza vs manila road

Owner of a house (that burnt down) due to the negligence of a railroad company cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence, in relation to such fire, merely because the house is built partly on the land of the same railroad company. Especially when the house was built before the laying down of the railroad track 15) custodio vs court of appeals to warrant the recovery of damages, there must be a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff

o wrong w/o damage or damage w/o wrong does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong o injury = the illegal invasion of a legal right o damage =loss hurt or harm which results from the injury o damages= the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered o damage w/o injury = damnum absque injuria

to maintain an action for injuries, plaintiff must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff o underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law

law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong 16) philam insurance vs CA negligence is the want of care required by the circumstance. It is a conduct that involves an unreasonable great risk of causing damage ; or more fully, a conduct that falls below the standard established by

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) law for the protection of others against unreasonably great risk of harm the question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case res ipsa loquitor merely provides a rebuttable presumption of negligence 17) Flores vs Pineda

a medical negligence is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional, that has caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient o elements involved in a medical negligence case:

duty breach injury proximate causation

o physician is expected to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use under the same circumstances o breach of duty occurs when the physician fails to comply with these professional standards.

Plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that: o ONE (the physician either failed to do something which a reasonable prudent man health care provider would have done OR he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done) o TWO (the failure or action caused injury to the patient)

Expert testimony is essential The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal connection between the negligence which the evidence established and the plaintiffs injury Causation MUST be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on competent expert testimony 18) culion ice vs Philippine motors

a person who holds himself out as being competent to do work requiring special skill is guilty of negligence if he fails to exhibit the care a prudent person would exhibit who is reasonably well skilled in the particular work undertaken 19) abaya vs favis There must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as a causal connection of such breach and the resulting death of the patient. In the performance of Dr. Favis professional duties, there is no fixed rule for a physician to follow. If he has the necessary qualifications, he needs only such degree of skill and ordinary learning as this and that circumstance may require, using the care and diligence as the best of his

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) judgment would dictate, and as each particular circumstance or circumstances may require. All that is needed in this case is that the physician had employed conscientiously his best judgment such as the circumstances may require 20) rasuman et al vs manila reyna hospital Where the proximate cause of death of a patient is the operation handled negligently by the hospital and physician, because tetanus germs entered the patient's body while still in the responsibility of the hospital and physician, compensatory damages were awarded. 21) Mendoza vs casumpang an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound found after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon a surgical operation is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. He must personally ascertain that the counts of instruments and materials used before the surgery and prior to sewing the patient up have been correctly done 22) De guia vs manila electrical railroad in determining the extend of liability for losses or damages resulting from negligence in the fulfillment of a contractual obligation, the courts have discretionary power to moderate liability according to the circumstances upon failure to comply with its obligation, the carrier incurs the liability commonly incident to the breach of contractual obligations

o delinquency is due to the negligence of its employee, the carrier cannot avail itself of the defense that it had exercised due care in the selection and instruction of such employee and that he was in fact experienced and reliable servant. A company which has exercised due care in the selection and instruction of the motorman upon one of its cars should be considered a debtor in good faith as regards liability towards a passenger who is injured by negligence 23) carlos vs manila electric care and caution required of electric companies is not simply the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent man, but the highest degree practicable to avoid injury to everyone who may be in the proximity to their wires and likely to come in contact with them.

o HOWEVER such companies are bound only to anticipate such combinations of circumstances and accidents and injuries there from as they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen An electric company is not, as a rule, negligent in failing to shut off its current upon its own initiative during a storm where it is shown that municipal authorities have general supervision and a real control over

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) such company and has designated one of its public officials to act in such matters. 24) Picart vs Smith the test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: would a prudent man , in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity to avoid impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences ,w/o reference to the prior negligence of the other party 25) Corinthian gardens vs tanjangco in every tort case filed, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

o 1) the damage suffered by the plaintiff o 2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person whose act he must respond o 3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred

a negligent act is an inadvertent act, it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be the one which creates the situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal or a force of nature. 26) jarco marketing corporation vs CA accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those circumstances which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist with the other children below 9 years old are conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence 27) light rail transit authority vs navidad the law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of every cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances the statutory provisions render carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers :

o a) through the negligence or willful acts of its employees

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) o b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission

in case of death, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent o the premise for the employers liability is negligence or fault on the part of the employee. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the preseumption of juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise dilgentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees.

The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. 28) Philippine national railways corporation vs vizcara negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided, by considerations which ordinary regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something a prudent man and reasonable man would not do. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just dilapidated stop look and listen signage is needed to give notice to the public. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. 29) lilius vs manila railroad The diligence of a good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and supervision of the discharge of their duties. 30) wright vs manila electric Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. It is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care of prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than by a sober one. 31) United States v Gacutan Whatever may have been the cause of an automobile accident, if it cannot be attributed to the misconduct or the negligence of the operator in the management of his machine, he cannot be held liable civilly or criminally Boys 10-12 years of age assumed to be able to take care of themselves It would place an intolerable burden on all wheeled vehicles if they had to reduce their speed every time they would see a child on the street

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) 32) United States v Tanedo If a life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability 33) United States v Tayotong In order to support a conviction it must be shown that the accused was actually guilty of negligence and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death With regard to contributory negligence it cannot be a defense where it appears that the accused was also negligent and that negligence was the proximate cause of the death 34) Barcelo v Manila Electric Co. The breaking out of a fire near an electrical installation cannot be presumed to be the origin of a fire unless there is satisfactory proof that no other reasonable ground exists where a fire might start The Burden of proof rests in the one seeks to recover damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence the negligence of another 35) Ong v Metropolitan Water District The Burden of proof rests in the one seeks to recover damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence the negligence of another Owner of swimming pool will not be liable if it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees and followed the diligence required by law DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE: 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 36) BPI v Lifetime Marketing Corp. There are three elements in a quasi delict (1) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond (2) damages suffered by the plaintiff (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred The Degree of Diligence from Banks: More than that of a reasonable man or a good father of the family. The fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors require banks to be duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care Proximate Cause: is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening causes, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred 37) Penullar v PNB He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause damages shall, as between two innocent parties, bear the loss

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) 38) Canlas v CA The Degree of Diligence from Banks: More than that of a reasonable man or a good father of the family. The business of a bank is affected by public interest, holding in trust the money of the depositors, the bank should guard against loss due to negligence or bad faith, by reason of which the bank would be denied the protective mantle of the land registration law accorded to purchasers or mortgagees for value and in good faith Doctrine of last clear chance: Where both parties are negligent but the negligence act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom 39) Gan v CA -Test of negligence: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person Injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty on the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted is to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence 40) People v Santos (CA) An automobile driver cannot put himself in a position where in order to save himself, he must injure someone else. 41) Phoenix Construction Co. v IAC Last clear chance doctrine Employer is responsible for the negligence of its employee by allowing said employeed to improperly park the dump truck at the employees home Improper parking of the truck created an unreasonable risk for anyone driving on that street, dionisios negligence was mere contributory negligence while that of the truck driver can be considered as the proximate and immediate cause of the accident 42) Mckee v IAC

The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the penal code. Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) that may be adopted is to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence Proximate Cause: is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening causes, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred A person driving a vehicle is presumed to have been negligent if he was found to be violating any traffic regulation Doctrine of last clear chance: Where both parties are negligent but the negligence act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom 43) ORIX Metro Leasing and Finance Group v Mangalinao Emergency rule: A person who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted is to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence Actual Damages: One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proven Temperate damages: Damages in lieu of loss of earning, is given only when net income has been sufficiently proven Moral damages: Damages that will serve to alleviate moral suffering he had undergone due to other partys culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the suffering inflicted Exemplary damages: Granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence 44) Sanitary steam laundry, inc. v CA

A party who asserts that another person, by violation of the land transportation and traffic code, contributed to the collision of vehicles, has the burden of showing a causal connection between the injury received and the alledged violation. The violation of the statute was the proximate or legal cause of the inury or that it substantially contributed thereto Negligence consisting in whole or in part of violation of the law: Like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of injury Psychological and physical tests: although no law requires it, such circumstance would certainly be a reliable indicator of the exercise of due diligence

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) More diligence on choosing a driver: Driving exacts more than the usual toll on the senses therefore employers must exert extra effort in selecting and supervising their employees. 45) Corpus v Lugue Proximate Cause: Proximate legal cause is the cause that is that 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 a 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 there from A person cannot be deemed negligent for failing to prevent a collision even after applying all means available to him within the few instance he had discovered the impending danger Last Clear Chance Doctrine (when NOT applied): The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where a party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered 46) Gabeto v Araneta Proximate Cause: The defendants acts of fixing the bit was improper but it was too remote from the accident which presently ensued ti be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof 47) Manila Electric Co. v Remoquillo Where it is shown that the deat of the deceased was primarily caused by his own negligence, the company could not be guilty of negligence and therefore cannot be sued for damages Rule on Remote and Proximate Cause: A prior and remote case cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote and the injury, a distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. 48) Vda. De Bataclan v Medina

Proximate Cause: the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable results of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should,

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) 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 Carriers Negligence: The failure if the driver and the conductor to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus, constitutes negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier. 49) Delgado cda. De Gregorio v. Go Chong Bing

Where the death or accident is caused by an act or omission of a person who is not in any way related to the defendant and the said act is the proximate, immediate and direct cause of the death of the victim or accident which is punishable by law, defendant should be absolved from any civil liability. The reason is not because one responsible for the accident had already received indemnification therefor, but because there is no direct and proximate causal connection between the negligence or violation of the law by the defendant to the death of the victim 50) Umali v Bacani Where negligence of the electricity company was proximate cause of the childs death, parental negligence in allowing the child to go to the place where the fallen live wire was located is merely contributory negligence Employers negligence:The negligence of the employee is presumed to be the negligence of the employer. This liability of the employer is primary and direct. In fact, the proper defense for the employer to raise so that he may escape liability is to prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage not only in the selection of his employees but also in adequately supervising them over their work. 51) Vda. De Imperial v Heald Lumber Co. Where it appears that the pilot who was flying the helicopter at the time was not licensed but was merely in the initial stage of his training and that the planes engine has ceased to function due to exhaustion of fuel, thus resulting in the impairment of its maneuverability and that the defendants companys cable against which the plane allegedly crashed, did not constitute a hazard to aerial navigation because they were not within the navigable airspace, it is clear that the accident occurred because of the pilots negligence, the defendant should be absolved from liability 52) Bernal and Erverso v House et al. There is nothing abnormal in allowing a child to run about a few paces in advance of his/her mother. No one could foresee the coincidence of an appearing automobile and the child suddenly falling into a ditch filled with hot water The defendant was negligent in permitting hot water to flow through public streets to endanger the life of passer bys who were unfortunate enough to fall into it

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) 53) Bayasen v CA Negligence must be proven by sufficient proof Where the proximate cause of the accident was unforeseen, in this case the skidding of the rear wheels of the jeep and not the unreasonable speed of the accused driver, no negligence can be attributed to the driver. Skidding being an unforeseeable event and proof of negligence being insufficient accused is deemed not to be negligent 54) Sabido v Custodio Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort feasor 55) Teague v Fernandez Failure of the respondents to comply with ordinances requiring buildings to provide two stairways constitutes an act of negligence The general principle is that violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of injury by the intervention of another agency occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the very thing which the statute or ordinance was intended to prevent. 56) Cipriano v CA Violation of a statutory duty is negligence in itself The existence of a contract between the parties does not bar a finding of negligence under the principles of quasi delict. Private respondent is not being held liable for breach of his contractual contract due to negligence but for his negligence in not complying with a duty imposed on him by law 57) Calalas v CA Quasi Delict v Breach of Contract: In quasi delict the negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action, whereas in breach of contract, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination Doctrine of proximate cause is only applicable in quasi delicts not in breach of contract Common Carriers: Upon an accident there is a presumption that the common carrier was negligent unless it clearly proves that it undertook the extraordinary negligence or the negligence of a good father of the family The taking of the extension seat is not an implied assumption of risk on the part of the passenger. A caso fortuito is an event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, was inevitable. This requires the following requirements to be present a) the cause of the breach is

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) independent of the debtors will, b) the event is unforeseeable or unavoidable c) the event is such as ti render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner and d) the debtor did not take part in causing the injury to the creditor. Petitioner should have foreseen the danger of parking his jeepney with its body protruding two meters into the highway Moral damages cannot be predicated on a breach of contract as a general rule but there is a exception if a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and b) where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith as provided in article 2220 of the civ code The common carriers admission in open court that his driver failed to assist the injured passenger in going to a nearby hospital cannot be construed as an admission of bad faith 58) PNB v Cheah Chee Chong Probable Cause: Any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise Contributory negligence: Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection 59) Philtranco Service Enterprise Inc. v Paras Moral damages by exception can be predicated on a breach of contract if a) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and where the common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith as provided in article 2220 of the civ code Damages may be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. Indeed, indemnification for damages ( damnum emergens) but also the claimants lost profits (Compensatory damages or lucrum cessans) 60) Mercury Drug Corp v Baking Requisites of sustaining a claim for negligence: a) damages suffered by the plaintiff b) fault or negligence of the defendant, c) connection of cause and effect between fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff Probable Cause: Any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred otherwise When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selectionof his employee or the supervision over him. 61. Novo & co v.ainsworth every injury to a person or his rights, by acts of omission or commission entitles the person injured to damages but such injury can only prejudice

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) the person causing it, and his negligence cannot affect a third party. The party guilty of negligence must repair the injury caused thereby. The action to recover damages caused by negligence or by culpable acts of omission or commission requires proof of one or the other of the causes which constitute the basis of the right of recovery and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. 62. Cenzo v atlantic gulf Under the common law in the US, an wmployer was obliged to provide reasonably safe ways, works and machinery for his employees. He could defend an action for damages arising out of an industrial accident by proving his own freedom from negligence, the plaintiffs contributory negligence that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant or that it happened through one of the risks assumed by the employee An employee cannot recover for a defect in the ways, works or machinery when he was not called upon to encounter the danger for the reasons that it was in fact located at a point upon the premises where his duties did not call him and where he had no right to be there. After providing reasonably safe ways, works and machinery, and exercising the care of a good father of a family, the employers liability is limited to those accidents which could have been forseen. 63. afialda vs hisole The owner of an animal is not liable for the injury caused by it to its caretaker 65. Ilocos norte electric cooperative v CA When an act of god combines with the defendants negligence to produce an injury, defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct Award of damages and attorneys fees is unwarranted if the action is filed in good faith, there should be no penalty on the right to litigate. 66. Nikko Hotel vs Reyes The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury) refers to a self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger even if he is not negligent in doing so. 67. Tamayo vs Gsell The employers act does not affect the doctrine of assumption of risks and contributory negligence. It does abolish in part the fellow servant doctrine, that is to say, so far as it relates to the negligence of superintendents.

It is actionable negligence for an employer to place at a dangerous machine a infant or minor who lacks sufficient age and capacity to

KAPUNAN-LIMCUMPAO torts doctrines (based on the syllabus of Atty Tesoro) comprehend and avoid the dangers of the employment. The infant employees capacity is the criterion of his responsibility.