Chapter8 Torts

8/3/2019 Chapter8 Torts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter8-torts 1/9

CHAPTER 8: OTHER ACTIONABLE WRONGS

Basic Principle: An act or omission may give rise to an actionbased on law, contract, quasi-contract or quasi-delict.

Legal Basis: Article 1157

What are the Causes of Action?

1. Contractual Negligence (Culpa Contactua)

a. Those which, in the performance of their obligations

are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay for damages (Arts.1170-1174, NCC)

b. There is a PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION

c. NEGLIGENCE IS NOT THE SOURCE OFOBLIGATION, but merely an INCIDENT resulting in itsbreach or non-fulfillment

2. Civil Negligence (Culpa Aquiliana)

a. Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or negligence, isobliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relationbetween the parties, is called a quasi-delict and isgoverned by the provisions of this Chapter.

b. There is NO PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION and thenegligence itself is the DIRECT AND INDEPENDENTSOURCE OF OBLIGATION of the party guilty thereof.

c. Other terms: Tort, Quasi-Delict

3. Criminal Negligence

a. If the negligence results into crime

NOTES:

→ One can be held liable for damages caused by his own faultor negligence whether or not there is a pre-existing contractualrelation or no contractual relationship

→ A pre-existing contractual relation between the parties doesnot preclude the existence of culpa aquiliana, or even culpacriminal based on the same act or omission.

Tort arising from Breach of Contract

→ While it is true that in order that a person may be liable for quasi-delicts, there must be no pre-existing contractualrelationship between the parties, yet, if the is an act thatviolates the contract independently of the contract, the actgive rise to liability under quasi-delicts.1

→ This rule can govern only where the act or omissioncomplained of would constitute an actionable tort independently of the contract. 2

→ Simply stated, when the act that breaks the contract may bealso a tort

Legal Basis: Jurisprudence:

1. YHT Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, SC

G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005)

2. Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of

Appeals, SC G.R. No. 123569, April 1, 1996)

3. Air France vs. Rafael Carrascoso, S.C G.R. No. L-

21438)

TEST FOR APPLICATION OF QUASI-DELICT PROVISIONS

Where, without a pre-existing contract between the parties, an

act or omisison can nonetheless amount to an actionable tortby itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is nobar to the application of the quasi-delict provisions to the case.

Breach of Contract with Malice or Bad Faith

• Moral damages may be recovered in cases of culpacontractual if defendant acted FRAUDULENTLY or IN BADFAITH.

• Malice or Bad Faith

o Includes only GROSS negligence (not applicable to

simple negligence)

o Where the evidence shows that breach of contract

was attended with malice or bad faith or with inexcusable

neglect or malfeasance, there is a case of quasi-delict whichmay be made basis for an award of damages under Articles 20and 21.

Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has theright to exclude any person from the enjoyment anddisposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such forceas may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent anactual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof insuch manner as to injure the rights of a third person.

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit theinterference of another with the same, if the interference is

necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threateneddamage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner maydemand from the person benefited indemnity for thedamage to him.

NOTES:

Basic Principle: One has a right to use, enjoy, dispose andeven exclude others from the enjoyment of his property. Butsuch use, enjoyment and disposal should not be prejudicial or cause harm or damage to another.

Principles espoused in the three aforecited Civil Codeprovisions:

1. Principle of Self-helpa. It is embodied in Article 429, NCC

b. Rationale: The right to repel or prevent an actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation of property isessential to maintenance of property right s

c. Article 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code (JustifyingCircumstances)

i. Defense of Property: Defense of property can beinvoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is

Reporters: Adao, Campilla, Gala, Gamboa, Joel, Mayuga, Razon and Teves 1



pays, he has no right of retention and LO isentitled to removeimprovement.

has embellished theprincipal thing if it suffersno injury thereby, and if his successor inpossession does notprefer to refund theamount expended.

2. LO in Good Faith; BPS in Bad Faith

LO BPS

1. Gets the accessorywithout paying anyindemnity, but must paynecessary expenses for preservation of the land.LO is entitled to damages.

2. Demand demolition of the work, or that theplanting or sowing beremoved at the BPS’s

expense PLUS damages

3. Compel the BPS to paythe price of the land, andthe sower the proper rentwhether or not the valueof the land is considerablymore than the value of thehouse PLUS damages.

1. Loses what is built,planted or sown withoutright to indemnity.

2. Liability for damages

3.Entitled toreimbursement for

necessary expenses of preservation of land

3. LO in Bad Faith; BPS in Good Faith

LO BPS

Only becomes the owner after proper indemnity pluspayment of damages.

EXCEPTION: WhenOwner of the Materialsdecides to remove themwhether or not destructionwould be caused.(Absolute Removal).Owner of Materials wouldstill be entitled to damages

1. Entitled to ABSOLUTERIGHT OF REMOVALplus damages OR

2. Entitled toreimbursement plusdamages (in case hechooses not to remove)

Remedies if option exercised by the Landowner wascompulsory selling and Builder fails to pay:

1. Leave things as they are and assume relation of lessor andlessee; pay rents

2. Demolish what has been built, sown or planted. (

3. Consider price of land as an ordinary money debt of thebuilder. Therefore he may enforce payment thru an ordinaryaction for recovery of a money debt (levy and execution).

ARTICLES 470-474

1. OWNER OF PRINCIPAL (OP) AND OWNER OFACCESSORY (OA) IN GOOD FAITH/BAD FAITH

OP OA

Acquires the accessory,indemnifying the OA for itsvalue

May separate them if no injurywill be caused;

If value of accessory isgreater than principal, OAmay demand separation evenif damages may be caused tothe principal (expenses to beborne by the one who causedthe conjunction)

2. OP in Good Faith; OA in Bad faith

OP OA

Owns the accessory plusdamages

Loses the thing incorporatedand indemnify OP fodamages

3. OP in Bad faith; OA in Good Faith

OP OA

1. Pay OA value of accessoryPLUS DAMAGES OR

2. Principal and accessory beseparated

PLUS DAMAGES

Right to choose between

1. OP paying him the value or

2. That the thing be separatedeven if principal will bedestroyed

Both with right to damages

Art.471 Form of Indemnity. (Thing equal in kind/value orprice)

Art. 472/473.

Mixture- takes place when two or more things belonging todifferent owners are mixed or combined with the respectiveidentities of the component parts destroyed or lost.

Two Kinds:

1. Commixtion- or the mixture of solid things belonging todifferent owners.




2. Confusion- or the mixture of liquid things belonging todifferent owners.

Rules:

1. Mixture by will of the owners- Their rights shall be governedby their stipulations. Without stipulation, each acquires a rightor interest in proportion to the value of his material.

2. Mixture caused by an owner in GF or by chance- each shareshall still be in proportion to the value of their thing.

3. Mixture caused by the owner in BF- the actor forfeits histhings and is liable for damages.

Art. 474. Specification.

- means the giving of a new form to a material belonging toanother person through the application of labor or industry.

RULES:

1. When the maker (considered principal) is in GF

a. Appropriate but must indemnify the owner of thematerial

b. May not appropriate –material transformed is worth

more than the new thing. The OM may

i. appropriate the new thing subject to payment of thevalue of the work or

ii. Demand indemnity for material with damages.

2. When the maker is in BF

a. OM can appropriate the work without paying for thelabor or industry

b. OM can demand indemnity plus damages

c. OM cannot appropriate if the value of the work isconsiderably more than the value of the material due to artistic

or scientific importance.

PROPERTY

Specification (Art. 474)

The transformation of another’s material by the application of labor. The material becomes a thing of different kind. Labor isthe principal

Rules:

1. Owner of the principal in GF

a. Maker acquires the new thing

b. He must indemnify the owner of the material

Exception: if the material is more valuable than the resultingthing, the owner of the material has the option:

a. To acquire the work, indemnifying for the labor, or

b. To demand indemnity for the material

2. Owner of the principal in BF, the owner of thematerial has the option:

a. To acquire the result without indemnity

b. To demand indemnity for the material plus damages

3. Owner of the material in BF:

a. He losses the material

b. He is liable for damages

Ruinous buildings and trees in danger of falling (Art. 482-483)

·the owner has the duty to demolish a building in danger ofalling or to repair the same to prevent it from falling.

·If owner fails to do so, administrative authorities in theexercise of police power may order demolition or takemeasures to insure public safety.

·If by fall of the tree, occasioned by the inaction or negligenceof the owner, someone has been hurt, the owner of the tree isliable for damages under Art. 2191

Art. 549 and 552 Liability of possessor in BF

Fruits- he is not entitled

a. Must reimburse the value of the fruits received

b. Has no right with respect to pending fruits

c. Must reimburse the value of the fruits which thelegitimate possessor could have receive

Necessary Expenses- entitled without right of retention

Useful expenses- not entitled to refund; forfeits theimprovement; has no right of removal.

Luxurious expenses- he is not entitled to refund; He loses theimprovement, but he is given a limited right of removal.

Charges- he shall share them with the owner of lawfupossessor, in propotion to their time of possession.

Deterioration or loss- he is liable for damages, whether du tohis fault or negligence, or even if due to fortuitious event.

Liability to owner or lawful possessor - liable for an amounequal to a reasonable rent for the use and occupation of theproperty.

USUFRUCT

Gives the right to enjoy the property of another with theobligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the titleconstituting the same otherwise provides.

Art.589, 590, 601- Obligations of the Usufructuary whichmay give rise to liability for damages.

Art. 589- to take care of the property held in usufruct as a goodfather of the family.

Art.590- to answer any damages which the thing held inusufruct may suffer through the fault of his substitute.

Art. 601- to notify the owner the owner of any prejudiciaact committed by third persons.

· When notification by the usufructuary is required:

o If a third party commits acts prejudicial to the rights oownership




Effect of non-notification: Usufructuary is liable for damagesas if they have been caused through his fault.

N.B. this pertains only to acts prejudicial to RIGHT OFOWNERSHIP and not to NAKED OWNERSHIP.

Exception: when the act affects possession, although it is inthe usufructuary, he should notify the owner because the latter has an interest in defending it.

EASEMENT RELATING TO WATER

N.B. Art. 637 of the Civil Code, has already beensuperseded by Art. 50 of P.D. 1067. (Water Code of thePhilippines.)

Article 50. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waterswhich naturally and without the intervention of man flowfrom the higher estate, as well as the stone or earth whichthey carry with them.

The owner of the lower estate cannot construct workswhich will impede this natural flow, unless he provides analternative method of drainage; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase thisnatural flow.

ART. 682 – 683 Liability of proprietor or possessor of land or building for NUISANCE

Proprietors or Possessor of Land or Building – prohibitedfrom committing nuisance through:

a. Noise g. water

b. Jarring h. glare

c. offensive odor i. glare

d. smoke j. other causes

e. heat

f. dust

Factories and shops – must maintain least possibleannoyance to the neighborhood

- subject to zoning, health police,and other laws and regulations

• the servient is the proprietor, possessor, factory andshops

• the dominant is the general public or anybody injuredby the nuisance

• these are limitations on ownership

• in accordance with the principle that every personshould use his property as not to cause damage or injury to others

ART. 684 Liability of proprietor making excavations upon his land

• restriction on right of ownership

• such excavation must not deprive any adjacent landor building sufficient lateral or subjacent support

• each landowner has right to be laterally supported bythe soil of his neighbor if without which the land willfall away or slide causing injury

• proprietor intending to make any excavations musnotify all owners or adjacent land

• injunction and damages may be awarded in propecircumstances

Lateral Support – supported and supporting land are dividedby vertical planes

Subjacent Support – supported land is above the supportingland

ART. 1388 Liability of Purchaser in bad faith of things alienated in fraud of creditors

• if the sale is rescinded the purchaser in bad faith musreturn the object acquired on such sale

• if it is impossible to return the object due to anycause, he must indemnify the creditor for damagessuffered

• if there are two or more alienations, the first acquirershall be liable first and so on successively

ART. 1390 Liability of Guilty party in voidable contracts

Voidable contracts

a. one of the parties is incapable of giving consent

b. consent is vitiated by mistake, violenceintimidation, undue influence or fraud

• the one who caused the mistake, violenceintimidation, undue influence and fraud shall be liablefor damages

• he can also be held criminally liable

• he or his successor in interest cannot ask fo

annulment of the contract – he who comes to courmust come with clean hands

ART. 1555 Liability of vendor in bad faith for eviction (warranty against eviction)

• Every contact has implied warranty against evictionmay it be stipulated or not

• If the vendor acted in bad faith, he shall also be liablefor damages, interests and ornamental expenses

• If lack of evidence of bad faith, vendee is not entitledto damages

Right of vendee to demand after eviction:

a. return of the value of the thing at the time of eviction

may it be greater or lesser than sale price

b. income or fruits, if he was required to deliver thesame to the winner of the suit against him

c. cost of the suit causing such eviction and the suiagainst vendor for warranty

d. expense of the contract if vendee paid for such

e. damages, interests and ornamental expenses in caseof sale in bad faith




ART. 1569 Liability of vendor in bad faith in case loss of defective thing sold ( warranty against hidden defects)

• If thing has no hidden defects during sale - loss isborne by vendee

• If the thing has hidden defects – in case id loss, thevendor is obliged to return price paid less the value of the thing at the time it was lost (DAMAGE)

• If sale was made in bad faith – he shall also be

liable for damages

• in all cases, loss may be through a fortuitous event or fault of vendee

ART. 1576 Liability of Veterinarian in sale of animals with Redhibitory defect

Redhibitory defect – hidden defect of animals and in such anature that expert knowledge is not sufficient to discover

Instances wherein veterinarian shall be laible for hiddendefects:

a. failed to discover through ignorance

b. failed to disclose such defect to vendee though badfaith

• the liability is not the vendor’s but the veterinarian’s

Art. 1596

Action for damages (One of the REMEDIES OF AN UNPAID

SELLER)

When may be exercised:

a. In case of wrongful neglect or refusal by the buyer toaccept or pay for the thing sold

b. In an executory contract, where the ownership in the

goods has not passed, and the seller cannot maintainan action to recover the price.

c. If the goods are not yet identified at the time of thecontract or subsequently

Measure of damages:

FORMULA: The difference between the contract

price, that is, the amount of the obligation which the buyer

failed to fulfill, and the market or current price, that is, the value

of the goods which the seller has left upon his hands.

The above-mentioned formula shall be different with the

formula in computing proximate damages. (1596, par. 3)

Additional damages for repudiation or countermand.(1596, par. 4)

Art. 1628

Assignment of Credits and Other incorporeal rights

(WARRANTIES OF THE ASSIGNOR OF CREDIT)

a. He warrants the existence of the credit

b. He warrants the legality of the credit at the perfectionof the contract

Violation of the above warranties, vendor/assignor (GOOD

FAITH) shall be liable only to the price received, expenses of

the contract and other legitimate payments by reason of the

assignment.

When vendor/assignor is in (BAD FAITH), he shall be liable for

price received, expenses of the contract, other legitmate

expenses and DAMAGES.

Who is an assignor in BAD FAITH? One who has knowledge

of any of the circumstances of non existence or illegality of the

credit, insolvency of the debtor.

Art. 1667

Art. 1668

ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LESSEE

Lessee is obliged to return the property leased upon

termination of the lease in the same condition as he received it

save what has been lost or impaired by lapse of time, ordinary

wear and tear or fortuitous event.

IF DETERIORATION TAKES PLACE: Lessee has the burden

to prove that it took place without its fault, unless it was due to

fortuitous event.

IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT LESSEE IS AT

FAULT:

When others cause deterioration. (guests, visitors, members of

the household)

Art. 1694

LIABLITY OF HEAD OF FAMILY TO HOUSE HELPER

In relation to Art. 19, 20, 21, 33

Article 1711 and 1712

Who are required to pay compensation:

-Owners of enterprises and other employers.

- The law does not distinguish the kinds of enterprises; hence, it applies to all industrial or non-industrialenterprises, as well as to religious, charitable and educationalinstitution.

Coverage of liability:

1. Death of, or personal injuries to, their employeesARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT(whether accidental or entirely due to fortuitous event)

2. Any illness or disease CAUSED BY SUCHEMPLOYMENT.

Defenses against Liability:

1. Employees own notorious negligence

2. Voluntary Act

3. Drunkenness




4. Partial defense: employees lack of due care or contributory negligence.

Arising out of – refers to the origin or cause of the accident anddescriptive of its character

In the course of – refers to time, place, and circumstancesunder which the accident take place.

Where death or injury caused by fellow worker

If caused by the NEGLIGENCE of the fellow worker- Employer is SOLIDARILY liable with the fellow worker.

If caused by intentional or malicious act of the fellow worker-Employer is not liable UNLESS, the employer did not exercisedue diligence in the selection and supervision of workers.

Article 1723

1. Liability of Engineer or Architect for Damages:

a. The collapse took place within 15 years fromcompletion of structure

b. It took place by reason of a defect in the plans andspecifications, or due to the defects in the ground;

c. The action for damages s brought within 10 years

following the collapse of the building

2. Liability of Contractor for damages

a. The edifice falls within the same period;

b. The collapse took place on account of defects in theconstruction or the use of materials of inferior qualitysupplied by him, or due to violation of the terms of thecontract;

3. Solidary Liability is imposed f the engineer or architect supervised or directed the construction with the constructor.

4. Effect of Acceptance of Work: Mere acceptance after completion does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action arising from the defect in the construction.

COMMON CARRIERS

Obligations of a Common Carrier:

CARRIAGE OF GOODS

a. Duty to accept the goods

- A common carrier that is granted with a

certificate of public conveyance is duty

bound to accept passengers or cargo without

any discrimination.

b. Duty to deliver the goods

- The goods should be delivered to the

consignee or any other person to whom the

bill of lading was validly transferred or

negotiated.

c. Duty to exercise extra ordinary diligence

*Duration of liability the duty starts from the time

the goods are unconditionally placed in the

possession and received by the carrier for

transportation, until the same are delivered actually or

constructively by the carrier to the consignee or to the

person who has the right to receive them.

* Defenses available to the CC in the carriage of

goods

i . Caso Fortuito/Force Majeure

ii. Acts of Public Enemy

iii. Negligence of the Shipper or Owner

iv. Character of the Goods or Defects in the

Packing or in the container

v. Order or Act of Public Enemy

CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS

a. Duty to observe utmost diligence to passengers

- A common carrier is bound to carry the

passengers safely as far as human care and

foresight can provide, using the utmost

diligence of very cautious persons, with due

regard for all the circumstances.

b. Duty to take care of the passengers’ baggage

NOTE:

• The carrier is liable for the acts of its employees

provided that the latter must be on duty at the time of the

act. (Maranan vs. Perez)

• Due diligence in the selection and supervision of

employees CANNOT be interposed as a defense by the

common carrier because its liability arises from the breach

of the contract of carriage.

• Passengers have the right to be treated with the

carrier’s employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and

due consideration. Such that any discourteous conduct on

the part of these employees toward a passenger gives the

latter an action for damages against the carrier. (Zulueta

vs. Pan-Am World Airways)

•Common carriers are NOT insurers of the lives

of their passengers.

* Defenses available to the CC in the carriage of goods

EXTRA ORDINARY DILIGENCE

CONCURRENT CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING FROM THE

NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE COMMON CARRIER

1. Culpa contractual




- Only the carrier is primarily liable and not the

driver, because there is no privity between

the driver and the passenger.

(Art.1759,NCC)

- No defense of due diligence in the selection

and supervision of employees.

2. Culpa aquiliana

- The carrier and the driver are solidarily liable

as joint tortfeasors . (Art.2180, NCC)

- Defense of due diligence in the selection and

supervision of employees is available.

- Although the relation between the carrier and

passenger is contractual in origin and nature,

nevertheless, the act that breaks the

contract may also be a tort . (Air France vs.

Carrascoso)

- In case the injury to a passenger due to the

negligence of the driver of the bus on whichthe passenger was riding on and of the

driver o another vehicle, the drivers as well

as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly

and severally liable for damages. (Tiu vs.

Arriesgado)

- Since employer’s liability is primary, direct

and solidary, its only recourse is to recover

what it has paid from its negligent employee.

(Philtranco vs. CA)

3. Culpa delictual

- The driver is primarily liable.

- The carrier is subsidiarily liable only if the

driver is convicted and declared insolvent.

(Art.100, RPC)

LIABILITY OF PARTNERS/PARTNERSHIP FOR TORT &

BREACH OF TRUST

• Nature of liability

- The partners and the partnership are

solidarily liable to third person (Art.1824) for

the wrongful act or omission, or for breach of

trust of the partner acting within the scope of

the firm’s business or with the authority of his

co-partners.

Reason behind the law: the law protects him

who, in good faith, relied upon the authority

of a partner, whether such authority is real or

apparent.

1. Liability arising from partner’s torts (Art 1822)

a. The partner must be guilty of a wrongful act or

omission

b. He must be acting in the ordinary course of

business, or with the authority of his co-partners

even if the act is unconnected with business.

2. Liability arising from partner’s breach of trust (Art

1823)

a. Misapplication committed by a partner who

received the money or property.

b. By another partner while it is in custody of the

partnership.

TORTS IN PARTNERSHIP AND AGENCY

Art.1822 WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION

Requisites for liability arising from partner’s torts

1. Partner must be guilty of a wrongful act or omission

and;

2. He must be acting in the ordinary course of business,

or with the authority of his co-partners even if the act

is unconnected with the business.

Note: Art 1822 does not extend to criminal liability such as

embezzlement, where the wrong doing is regarded as

individual in character.

Art.1823 BREACH OF TRUST

This provision means that the partnership is liable for any

losses suffered by a third person:

1. whose money or property is misappropriated by a

partner who received with in the scope of his authority

or

2. By any other partner after it was received by the

partnership in the ordinary course of business while in

its custody.

Art.1824 LIABILITY

Partners are solidarily liable to third person for the act or

omission (Art.1822) or breach of trust (Art 1823) of a partner acting within the scope of the firm’s business or with the

authority of his co-partners. Even if partners were innocent,

partners are liable without prejudice to their right to recover

from the guilty partner.

Reason: the law protects him who, in good faith, relied upon

the authority of a partner, whether such authority is real or

apparent.

Art.1928 RIGHT OF AGENT TO WITHDRAW




Basis of this rule: an agency whether gratuitous or for a

compensation is based in the constitutional prohibition against

involuntary servitude.

a) Without just cause – agent must give due notice to

the principal and withdrawal is without just cause, to

indemnify the principal should the latter suffer

damage due to such withdrawal.

b) With just cause – the agent cannot be held liable if the

withdrawal is based on the impossibility of continuingwith agency or is due to fortuitous event.

Art.1929 OBLIGATION OF THE AGENT TO CONTINUE

AFTER WITHDRAWAL

Purpose: to prevent damage or prejudice to the principal

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

Art.1951 LIABILITY OF BAILOR FOR KNOWN HIDDEN

FLAWS

Requisites:

1. There is flaw or defect in the thing loaned

2. The flaw or defect is hidden

3. The bailor is aware thereof

4. He does not advise the bailee of the same

5. The bailee suffers damages by reason of said flaw or

defect.

Art.1998 to 2003 LIABILITY OF KEEPERS OF HOTELS OR

INNS

For the keepers of hotel to be responsible as depositaries, the

following elements must concur:

a) They have been previously informed about the effects

brought by the guests;

b) The latter have taken pre cautions regarding

safeguarding.

Extent of Liability – not limited to effects lost or damaged in the

hotel rooms which come under the term “baggage” or “articles”

used by travellers but also include those lost in hotel annexes

such as vehicles in the hotel’s garage.

Note: Responsibility imposed extends to all those who offer

lodging for compensation whatever may be their character.

Cases where hotel keepers are liable regardless of the amount

of care exercised:

a) The loss or injury caused by his servants or

employees as well as strangers provided that notice

has been given and proper precautions taken (Art.

2000)

b) The loss is caused by the act of the thief or robber

done without the use of arms and irresistible force.

(Art.2001)

Cases where hotel keepers are NOT liable:

a) Loss or injury caused by force majeure unless he is

guilty of fault or negligence in failing to provide

against the loss or injury.

b) Loss is due to the acts of the guests or his family o

visitors

c) Loss arises from the character of the things into the

hotel.


Chapter8 Torts

Documents

Transcript of Chapter8 Torts