0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
37 Ansichten4 Seiten
This document discusses the legal principles of liability for damages in crimes, quasi-delicts, and contracts according to the Civil Code of the Philippines. It defines key terms like "natural and probable consequences" and discusses intervening causes that can break the chain of causation between the original negligent act and the damages. Specifically, it explains that foreseeable intervening causes do not relieve liability, while independent intervening causes must be ones that could not have been reasonably anticipated by the original wrongdoer. The document also notes some examples of conditions that can give rise to liability, like inherently dangerous conditions, defective products, and placing objects in dangerous positions.
This document discusses the legal principles of liability for damages in crimes, quasi-delicts, and contracts according to the Civil Code of the Philippines. It defines key terms like "natural and probable consequences" and discusses intervening causes that can break the chain of causation between the original negligent act and the damages. Specifically, it explains that foreseeable intervening causes do not relieve liability, while independent intervening causes must be ones that could not have been reasonably anticipated by the original wrongdoer. The document also notes some examples of conditions that can give rise to liability, like inherently dangerous conditions, defective products, and placing objects in dangerous positions.
This document discusses the legal principles of liability for damages in crimes, quasi-delicts, and contracts according to the Civil Code of the Philippines. It defines key terms like "natural and probable consequences" and discusses intervening causes that can break the chain of causation between the original negligent act and the damages. Specifically, it explains that foreseeable intervening causes do not relieve liability, while independent intervening causes must be ones that could not have been reasonably anticipated by the original wrongdoer. The document also notes some examples of conditions that can give rise to liability, like inherently dangerous conditions, defective products, and placing objects in dangerous positions.
defendant would normally result Art. 2022 In crimes and quasi-delicts, the in the damage suffered by the defendant shall be liable for all damages obligee. which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that 2.5 CAUSE AND CONDITION such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by The active “cause” of the harm the defendant. and the existing “conditions” upon which that cause operated. Art. 2021. In contracts and quasi- contracts, the damages for which the If the defendant has created only obligor who acted in good faith is liable a passive static condition, which shall be those that are natural and made the damage possible, the probable consequences of the breach of defendant is said not to be liable. the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably a. Types of Dangerous foreseen at the time the obligation was Conditions constituted. There is no question, therefore, In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or that even if the defendant had wanton attitude, the obligor shall be only created a condition, he responsible for all damages which may may be held liable for damages be reasonably attributed to the non- if such condition resulted in performance of the obligation. harm to either person or property. Note: 1. Those that are inherently A person may be held liable for dangerous – includes things quasi delict although the damage to the that are inherently plaintiff is unforeseen. dangerous because they retain their potential Thus, the “directness” approach as energy in full, even if they well as the substantial factor test may be are stored or handled with applied in this jurisdiction as a policy test. utmost care.
The rule in contracts is different The smallest application of
from the rule in quasi-delict if the person force, or small change in sought to be held liable ex contractu acted the conditions can release in good faith. or otherwise set in motion large forces that can cause harm in the narrow sense D. Meaning of “Natural and Probable” of that term. under Article 2202 The potential for danger Involves two things: remains great even if its 1. CASUALITY—that the damage probability is low. would not have resulted without fault or negligence of the i.e one creates a dangerous defendant. condition if he buries radioactive waste or hazardous chemicals in his who negligently creates a backyards. A small change dangerous condition in temperature or humidity cannot escape liability for results in injuries to other the natural and probable people. consequences thereof.”
2. Those where a person places a 2.6 EGG-SKULL OR THIN-SKULL
thing which is not dangerous RULE in itself, in a dangerous position – includes cases A tortfeasor whose act, where objects are placed in superimposed upon a prior latent such a way that other condition, results in an injury may people's right of way is not be made liable for damages. recognized. Egg-Skull or Thin-Skull rule under Also includes cases where which the tortfeasor is required to objects are placed in an take the victim as he finds him. unstable position where the application of small force The tortfeasor-defendant is liable will permit the release of even though the negligent act some greater force. caused an injury that is greater than what is usually experienced i.e a dangerous condition by a normal person because of a was created because a truck prior condition of the plaintiff. was parked askew in such a way that it partly blocks III. EFFICIENT INTERVENING ongoing traffic. CAUSE
If a person leaves a rock in 1. Definition and Concept.
an unstable position on top of a steep hill, there is a Is one that destroys the causal great possibility that connection between the somebody will be injured negligent act and injury and because it is bound to be the thereby negatives liability. pulled on the ground by the force of gravity. An intervening cause will be regarded as the proximate cause and the first cause as 3. Those involving products and too remote, where the chain of other things which are events is so broken that they dangerous because they are become independent and the defective—include defective result cannot be said to be the construction of a building. consequence of the primary The thing itself is not cause. supposed to be dangerous but it was negligently or There is NO efficient erroneously produced or intervening cause if the force constructed. created by the negligent act or The tortfeasor who omission have either: constructed the building 1. Remained active itself; or defectively created the 2. Created another force dangerous condition; “one which remained active until it directly caused the 1.3 NEGLIGENCE OF THHE result; or DEFENDAN 3. Created a new active risk of being acted upon by the The efficient intervening active force that caused cause may be the the result. negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff 1.1 TEST OF SUFFICIENCY may be negligent but the OF INTERVENING defendant’s negligence CAUSE pre-empted the effect of such negligence. The test of the sufficiency of an intervening cause to See. McKee vs. IAC defeat recovery for negligence is not to be 2. FORESEEABLE INTERVENING found in the mere fact of CAUSE its existence, but rather in the nature and manner in The rule in this jurisdiction is to which it affects the the effect that foreseeable intervening continuity of operation of cause cannot be considered sufficient the primary cause or the intervening causes. connection between it and the injury. If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably Such intervening cause to be anticipated, or one which in must be new and ordinary human experience is reasonably independent, not under to be anticipated, or one which the the control of the original defendant has reason to anticipate under wrong doer, or one which the particular circumstances, the by the exercise of defendant may be negligent, among other reasonable foresight and reasons, because of failure to guard diligence, he should have against it; or the defendant may be anticipated and guarded negligent only for that reason. against it. Note: If the intervening cause is a It must break the recurrent feature of the environment, they continuity of causal cannot be considered efficient because connection between the they are foreseeable. original negligent act or omission and the injury so 3.MEDICAL TREATMENT AS that the former cannot be INTERVENING CAUSE. said to have been the efficient cause of the latter. Under this same principle, a tortfeasor is liable for the consequence of negligence, 1.2 WHEN CAUSE NOT mistake, or lack of skill of a physician or INTERVENING CAUSE. surgeon whose treatment aggravated the A cause is not an original injury. The same is considered a intervening cause if it is normal and foreseeable risk. already in operation at the time the negligent act is The rule is based on the reasoning that the committed. additional harm is either: 1. A part of the original injury; 2. The natural and probable 3. CASES WHEN THE DOCTRINE consequences of the tortfeasor’s WAS HELD INAPPLICABLE original negligence; or a. Misuse of the concept of 3. The normal incidence of medical Last Clear Chance care necessitated by the tortfeasor’s original negligence. Versions If at all, there will only be an efficient intervening cause where the original tortfeasor is not liable or a circumstance that mitigates liability depending on the circumstances if the injured failed to exercise reasonable care in securing the services of a competent physician or surgeon.
See. Pp vs. Acuram, GR No. 117954, April
27, 2000
4.UNFORESEEN AND UNEXPECTED
ACT OR CAUSE
See cases
IV CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Is defined as conduct on the part of the
injured, 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.
1. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE CAUSE 2. COMPOUND CAUSES 3. PART OF THE SAME CAUSAL SET 4. DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE ONLY CAUSE
V. DOCTRINE OF THE LAST CLEAR
CHANCE
1. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS ON LAST
CLEAR CHANCE a. Prevailing View b. Minority View c. Third View