Chapter 4 Report.pptx

7/28/2019 Chapter 4 Report.pptx

1/16

DEFENSES INNEGLIGENCE CASES


2/16

Definition:Failure to exercise that degree of care which a person

of ordinary prudence (a reasonable man) would

exercise under the same circumstances. Refers toconduct that falls below the standards established

by law for the protection of others against

unreasonable risk of harm. (Barrons LawDictionary)


3/16

Quasi Delicts:

Acts or omissions constituting fault or negligence, resulting in damage therebeing a causal relationship between the act or omission and the damagecaused.

Criminal Negligence:

Reckless Imprudence - consists in voluntary, but without malice, doling orfailing to do an act from which material damage results by reason ofinexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing orfailing to perform such act

Culpa Contractual:Those who in the performance of the obligation are guilty of fraud,

negligence, or delay, are liable for damages.


4/16

PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT (OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE

CAUSE):

General Rule:

The victim of negligence is likewise required to exercise due care inavoiding injury to himself.

Article 2179 (New Civil Code):When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and

proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But ifhis negligence was only contributory, the immediate andproximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of duecare, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shallmitigate the damages to be awarded.


5/16

PLDT vs CA and Spouses Antonio and Gloria EstebanFacts:

In the evening of July 30, 1968 the jeepney driven by Anotnio Esteban(accompanied by his wife) hit a mound of earth and fell into an opentrench thereby sustaining injuries. The mound of earth was from anexcavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT through its contractor for theinstallation of an underground conduit system.

The spouses Esteban asserts that PLDT had been negligent since theexcavation was left without a cover and there were no visible warningsigns near and around the excavation site.

PLDT on the other hand asserts that the Antonio Esteban had been thevictim of their own negligence.


6/16

Issue:Whether or not PLDT was negligent in the conduct of the excavation and

therfore can be held liable for damages for injuries suffered by thespouses Esteban.

Resolution:A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of

proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof. Suchproof must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. In thepresent case, the plaintiff failed to establish such negligence asevidenced by:

Physical evidence shows that Antonio for unexplained reasons swervedfrom the inner lane of the street into where the mound was located.

Evidence shows that he was driving more than 25kph on a dark road Antonio resided in the location and passed by the excavation every night

on his way home from work


7/16

Kim vs. Aerial Taxi Co (58 Phil 838)Facts:On the morning of September 4, 1931, plaintiff bought a ticket and took a

flight to Iloilo in one of the defendants hydroplanes. The plane arrived inthe intended destination safely but before the plane can complete the

landing and disembarkation of the passenger, the plaintiff sufferedinjuries from the planes propeller having disembarked from the planebefore the plane had come to full stop.

The plaintiff filed a claim for damages from injuries suffered alleging thatthat defendant failed to comply with its contractual obligation to carrythe plaintiff safe and sound to his destination

Issue:Whether or not Aerial Taxi Co was negligent and liable for

damages for not complying with the contract to transportthe plaintiff safe and sound to his destination.


8/16


9/16

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

General Rule:If plaintiffs negligence is merely contributory, the plaintiff is

not barred from recovering from the defendant


10/16

Article 2179 (New Civil Code):

When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate andproximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.Butif his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and

proximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of duecare, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shallmitigate the damages to be awarded.

Article 2214 (New Civil Code):

In quasi- delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiffshall reduce the damages that he may recover.


11/16

- Includes the application ofCOMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE , whichpresupposes that the relative degree of negligence of theparties is considered in determining whether, and to what

degree, either should be responsible for his negligence.

- Involves APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES

PURE TYPE


12/16

COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF

COTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

the negligence of the defendant whichcontributes to his injury COMPLETELYbars recovery

it DOES NOT completely bay recoverybut merely MITIGATES the same


13/16

M.H Rakes vs. The Atlantic Gulf & PacificCompany ( GR No. L-1719)

Facts:The plaintiff, while at work, transporting iron rails from a barge in the

harbor to the companys yard near the malecon in Manila, had anaccident. At a certain spot at pr near the waters edge, the track sagged,the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off , and caughtthe plaintiff , breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at aboutthe knee.

Issue:Whether or not the plaintiff contributed to the immediate

cause of the accident and therefore cannot recover fordamages.


14/16


15/16

Phoenix Construction, Inc. & Armando U.Carbonel vs. IAC & Leonardo Dionisio

( GR No. L-65295)Facts:

Private respondents car collided with the dump truck parked on the rightside of General Lacuna Street, where he was heading home. Said dumptruck had been driven by the petitioner with the consent of his employer, in view of the early scheduled work the following morning. The privaterespondent suffered some physical injuries, including some permanentfacial scars, a nervous breakdown and loss of 2 gold bridge dentures.

Issue:Whether or not the private respondent contributed to the

immediate and proximate cause of the injury therebyprevented him to recover damages.


16/16

Resolution:The private respondents negligence was only contributory and

the immediate and proximate cause of injury remained the

truck drivers lack of due care. The mere fact that the privaterespondent was intoxicated and driving home fast onlypaved for contributory negligence. He was therefore entitledto recover damages less than the his negligence.

The SC allocated most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio, fromwhich 80% will borne exclusively by the petitioners. The 20%of the damages awarded by the respondent court except theP10,000 exemplary damages and P4,500 attorneys fees,shall be borne by the private respondent.

Chapter 4 Report.pptx

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 4 Report.pptx