VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA - applies to non-contractual relations
REQUISITES:
1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage 2) he understood and appreciated the risk from danger
3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria
Calalas v. CA See above Hard to give serious thought to contention that taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.
Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria
Nikko Hotel v. Roberto Reyes
Gatecrasher during the birthday party of the manager of Nikko Hotel
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to 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. As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find
application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.
Defenses against charge of negligence - plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria
Pantaleon v. American Express
European tour; credit card company took long to approve transaction; other tourists got irritated
Same with Nikko Hotel but in this case, the doctrine is applicable
Why different from Nikko Hotel? Pantaleon's cause of action is BoC, not Articles 19-21
Defenses against charge of negligence - prescription
Kramer v. CA Collision of two sea vessels
Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a quasi-delict must be instituted within four years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed.
Prescriptive period must be counted from the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises.
If multiple collision or oil spill where there are many ships - it is reasonable to wait for the BMI's findings
Proximate Cause Bataclan v. Medina Bus turned turtle;
gasoline leaked;
caught fire;
passengers who were stuck inside were charred to death
PROXIMATE CAUSE: 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
PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: 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 ordinary 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
Regardless of proximate cause, carrier is still liable.
Proximate cause does not matter is BoC
Why did Court discuss proximate cause? Because under BoC, defendant would only be liable for physical injuries. They had to discuss proximate cause to make carrier liable for the death of the victims - to increase damages
Proximate Cause Mercury Drug v. Baking Given a potent sleeping tablet
Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent.
Proximate Cause Pilipinas Bank v. CA Wrong account number; deposit posted in another account
PROXIMATE CAUSE: any cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence.
Foreseeability should not be a factor
If there's a case similar to Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition
Concurrent Cause Far Eastern v. CA Berthing of vessel Where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured.
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.
If the concurrent act was the proximate cause, the degree of participation does not matter
What is the rule on liability? Liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury
No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.
Remote Cause Gabeto v. Araneta Horse nakawala An appreciable interval of time elapsed before the horse started on his career up the street.
It is therefore evident that the stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof.
It was broken by an efficient intervening cause
Prove chronology of events to determine proximate cause
Remote Cause Manila Electric v.
Remoquillo
See above See above See above
Intervening Cause Phoenix Construction v.
IAC
Came home from a cocktail party; no headlights probably because driver has no pass; truck parked askew
If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason.
The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a
substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass.
Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the
defendant's negligence.
When does it become an efficient intervening cause? Should not be foreseeable
Tests to Determine Proximate Cause
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching Prime mover parked askew
There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission.
Tests to Determine Proximate Cause
Phoenix Construction v.
IAC
See above The distinctions between "cause" and
"condition" have already been "almost entirely discredited." It is quite impossible to
distinguish between active forces and passive situations, particularly since, as is invariably the case, the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not
necessarily affect liability.
It is not the distinction between "cause" and
"condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.
Last Clear Chance Picart v. Smith See above The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
Last Clear Chance Bustamante v. CA Collision between truck and bus; heirs of passengers sued owners of colliding vehicles
The principle of LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of
colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
As between defendants, the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint
tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril, and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.
This is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles
Last Clear Chance Phoenix Construction v.
IAC
See above Under Article 2179, the task of a court, in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or
"immediate." 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. 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.
Common law - LCC tempers contributory negligence of plaintiff such that he can recover provided defendant has the last clear chance to avoid the accident (sa US kasi, kapag may CN plaintiff cannot recover)
LCC not applicable in our jurisdiction because of Article 2179 - reason for the rule does not exist in our jurisdiction
LCC - sort of back up to determine proximate cause; if you cannot BUT-FOR to determine PC, use LCC
Issue of control is secondary, first is nature of negligent act. If nature of negligent act is relatively the same, person who is last in control may be applied
Last Clear Chance Phil Bank of Commerce v. CA
Secretary entrusted with funds deposits money in the bank account of husband;
accomplished two deposit slips, altered the second one
LCC states that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.
The rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Commercial transactions are repetitive - difficult to determine what's the first negligent act
Problematic:
1) there was already a breach of contract 2) Court already determined proximate cause 3) they still applied CN after applying LCC
Last Clear Chance Glan v. IAC Collision between jeep and truck
The doctrine of the last clear chance provides as valid and complete a defense to accident liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. Smith.
Doctrine here counteracts Phoenix - LCC applicable in our jurisdiction
Last Clear Chance Pantrangco v. Baesa Two families on their way to celebrate wedding anniversary of the other couple
For LCC to be applicable, it is necessary to show that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with the exercise of due care, have been aware of it
Vda de Bonifacio - motorist in proper lane entitled to assume that approaching vehicle coming from wrong side will return to proper lane
Last Clear Chance Canlas v. CA Mortgage executed by impostor
LCC - where both parties are negligent but the negligent 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.
The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Last Clear Chance Consolidated Bank v.
CA
See above In culpa contractual, neither the contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract.
LCC does not apply in BoC
Last Clear Chance Engada v. CA Emergency rule EMERGENCY RULE - a person who is confronted with a sudden emergency might have no time for thought, and he must make a prompt decision based largely upon impulse or instinct. Thus, he cannot be held to the same standard of conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision.
Last Clear Chance PNR v. Brunty See above The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case.
Last Clear Chance Lapanday v. Angala Why was LCC applied here when the Court ruled that both were equally negligent? Shouldn't there have been concurrent negligence?
Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority
Libi v. IAC Sweethearts killed; boyfriend killed ex-girlfriend and also killed himself using gun of the father
Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.
Under Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative
qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender.
Family Code amended Article 2180 such that parents are equally liable, not alternative
Persons Vicariously Liable - Persons Exercising Parental Authority
Tamargo v. CA Parental authority contested if it lies with adoptive or natural parents
The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
Law presumes minor living with parent is under the control of parent
Article 221 of the FC has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage.
Persons Vicariously Liable -
Teachers/School
Palisoc v. Brillantes Contention was students were not living and boarding with teacher or school official (based on Mercado ruling)
"so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time
Persons Vicariously Liable -
Teachers/School
Amadora v. CA About to graduate;
shot by fellow student
Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
"in the custody" - as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.
Issue should be custody over the person causing
Issue should be custody over the person causing