Villegas, Paula Grace V.

LLB III-B

TORTS AND DAMAGES

Activity no.1

1. When can one say that a person has a sufficient cause of action against another?

The fundamental test of whether a person has a cause of action in tort against another is whether the
defendant owed plaintiff any legal duty to do something which defendant wrongfully did not do, or not do
something which he wrongfully did so, in violation of the legal right or rights of the plaintiff.

2. Discuss briefly each essential element of a cause of action in tort.

Essential elements of a cause of action in tort are: 1. Legal right; 2. Legal duty; 3. A wrong in the form of
an act or omission in violation of said legal right and duty with consequent damage or injury to the
plaintiff.

Legal right has been described as a well-founded claim enforced by sanctions and legal duty is that which
the law requires to be done or forborne to a determinate person or to the public. No right or duty is
considered as a basis for an action of tort except a legal right or duty which is established on principles of
general utility. Rights and duties of a purely moral character are not such rights and duties as afford a
basis for tort. Conduct, even though improper and causing harm to another, does not constitute a tort
unless a legal, as distinguished from a moral, right is violated or duty disregarded.

In order to constitute a tort, not only must a right and duty exist, but there must be conduct constituting a
breach of duty or a violation of a right. There must be a wrong done. Not every wrongful invasion of a
protected right causing damage gives rise to a tort. To have that result, there must not only be an invasion
of right, but the invasion must be wrongful, that is, it must result from the breach or omission of a
correlative duty; otherwise, it will not be tortious.

3. Distinguish legal rights and duties from moral rights and duties. Discuss their legal implications. You
may provide examples.

Moral rights and duties are dictated merely by good morals, or by humane considerations, they are not
enforceable by law and people are not legally bound to observe them, therefore they are not such rights
and duties as afford a basis for tort. (Example: It is our moral duty to serve our parents. It is our moral
duty to help our relatives who are greatly affected and are suffering from the ongoing crisis in our
country.) On the other hand, legal rights and duties are enforceable by law and people are legally bound
to observe them. (Example: We have a legal duty not to enter other person’s own dwelling without his or
her consent. It is the legal duty of the parents to support their own children.)

4. Give an instance where liability arises on the manner of acting rather than on the act itself.
A janitor is cleaning a restroom in a restaurant and is irresponsible and leaves the floor wet without any
warning sign or board. In such a case, he or his employer could be held liable for any injury caused
because of the wet floor.

5. Distinguish acts causing injury resulting from: a.) Malfeasance, b.) Misfeasance; c.) Nonfeasance.

Malfeasance is applied when any unlawful act is committed and it covers any act which is illegal and
causes harm to another individual (ex. Trespass to dwelling).Misfeasance refers to improper performance
of some lawful act; it means carrying out legal and improper action, but it is done in such a way that it
harms others or causes injury to other people (ex. Negligence in driving a motor-vehicle which have
caused injury to another person). Nonfeasance is the failure or omission to perform an obligatory or
compulsory act ( ex. failure of the parent to support his o her own child).

6. State the circumstances when motive is immaterial in determining the existence of a tort.

Where an act is, either inherently or because of the manner of performance, an unprivileged invasion of
right, the absence of malice or the presence of a good motive does not render it any less a tort. If the
conduct is outside the zone of privilege, it is tortuous regardless of motive.

7. Discuss briefly the concept of the “transferred intent” rule.

Under transferred intent rule, a person is liable even when a damage actually brought about is different
from that contemplated by him. Where a willful tort is committed, the wrongdoer is responsible for the
direct and proximate consequences of his act without regard to his intention to produce the particular
result.

8. How is an action for injurious falsehood different from an action of libel or slander?

An action for injurious falsehood is one on the case for damages willfully and intentionally done without
just cause, occasion, or excuse. The essence of the action is the publication of a false statement made
maliciously and resulting in actual damage to the plaintiff. It is an actionable wrong to maliciously make
a false statement with regard to any person with the result that the other persons are induced to act in a
manner which causes loss to that person. Since the false statement injures him only by misleading other
persons into action that is detrimental to him, it is governed by more lenient rules of liability as compared
to an action of libel or slander.

9. Generally, a cause of action may not be predicated upon mere rudeness, threats, or abusive language.
State the exception.

Where a threat of legal action prevents a third person from giving aid necessary to the plaintiff’s bodily
security or necessary to prevent damage to his property, the one making such threat will be liable for the
resulting damage.

10. What is the basis of the rule on “strict” or “absolute” liability?

Under the rule on strict liability, the liability rests on intentional doing of that act which a person knows
or should, in exercise of ordinary care, know may in normal course of events reasonably cause loss to
another.
11. Can a person still maintain an action for a wrong resulted from an act to which he has consented?
Explain briefly.

Generally, one cannot maintain an action for a wrong occasioned by an act to which he has consented,
under the familiar maxim “volenti non fit injuria”, except where the act involves the life of a person, or a
breach of the peace, or amounts to a public offense.

12. When is an act considered the proximate cause of an injury?

For an act to be considered the proximate cause, the injury resulted must be the natural and probable
consequence of the wrong, that is, such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the
case, might or ought to have been foreseen as likely to flow from the wrong.