POSSI BLED DE EFENS NSESOFDEFEND NDANTI N CASEOFQUASIDELI CT
1) Proximate and and immediate immediate cause of injury is plainti – total defense defense ---imputed negligence 2179- When the plaintif’s negligence negligence is the proximate and immediate cause o his injury he cannot cannot recover damages; damages; - - - ut i his negligence is merely merely contri!utory he may recover !ut the courts shall mitigate the damages "hich he may recover #xample$ %&#'&(# )* *+, +./#(0 / the person "ho crossed the railroad railroad is negligent "hich negligence is the proximate cause he cannot recover %.+,#.+ )* 3/4#5+0 When the vehicle o the plaintif "as the one "ho crushed the rear o the other !oth in motion the plaintif "ho !umped the rear cannot recover %6/ )* &3/( +#./+( 5+8/ 4'0 the injured party’s o"n negligence in not a"aiting proper instruction and time in disem!aring is proximate cause and he cannot recover */* )* &+4/:/4 +/.W+ +/.W+* : - 5he 5"in 'tter aircrat carrier o &+4 has landed and passengers disem!ared saely saely - /n the process taxing it to the hanger &ilots unga!og and alve< has made such communications communicat ions "ith the air transportation transportat ion o=ce -3o"ever the last communication necessary necessary "as made prematurely prematurely and during the same time "hen the !elated taxing "as made the oeing aircrat o &+( "as !y virtue o timely communication in the process o taing of - a collision too place "hich resulted to injuries o pilots o &+4 / 4an the pilots and their company recover 3 10 no the negligence o employee is deemed negligence o employer under 21>? hep l ai nt i ffso wnne g l i g e nc ei st hep r o x i mat ec a us eo ft hei nj ur yhec a nno t 20 Where t r e c o v e r
,egligence @ proximate cause ,egligence here consists o the ailure to give communication so as not to create dangerous tra=c o aircrats; the ailure o the plaintif to respect the right o &+( Aollo" air transportation transportation rules that in case o a taxing and taing of the taxing must give "ay to the other %in case o taxing aircrat a0 converging -the one in let shall give "ay !0 approaching head on- shall ull stop or change course0
&(B5 )* #*5#+, : C *pouses #ste!an are in their jeepney the headlights o "hich in dim mode traversing lacson street o manila r este!an suddenly changed rom inner to outer lane it "as too late "hen he noticed the D eet high pile o soil "ith said excavation or underground conduit system o &(B5 their jeep ell into an open trench - they sufered injuries "ith scars on ace and lips / C Whether he cannot recover
3 C spouses cannot recover because their negligence was the proximate cause of the loss taking into a count also absence of negligence on part of PLDT. - r este!an "as negligenct !ecause had he excercised ordinary diligence o reasona!le prudent man he could not have sufered the actors !eing the headlights and his no"ledge o the existing excavation
2) Contributo Contributory ry negligenc negligencee- partial defense defense ---imputed contributory negligence %negligence %negligence o teller under master servant relationship that "ill mitigate damages can !e recovered !y the !an ee-er agencyE0 taxi driver passenger no no 2179 that in case o contri!utory contri!utory negligence !y plaintif he can still recover !ut the court shall mitigate the damages to !e recovered 5#*5 5' B#5#./,# B#5#./,# #8/*5#,4# #8/*5#,4# ': 4',5./F5'. 4',5./F5'. ,#(/#,4# G"hether injured party’s act sho"ed lac o ordinary care and oresight that could cause him harm or put his lie in danger 5#*5 F*#B 5' B#5#./,# #85#,5 ': (/+/(/5 G 4'&+.+5/)# ,#(/#,4# .F(# is a scheme "ere the degree o responsi!ility o opposing parties are determined !y their degree o negligence or culpa!ility 4'F.5 /* :.## 5' B#5#./,# 53# #85#,5 ': /5/+5/', /5 /* *+/B 53+5 4'&+.+5/)# ,#(/#,4# .F(# /* F*#B .+6#* )* +5(+,5/4 F(: +,B &+4/:/4 4' : C &laintifs are employees o deendant company - they "ere in a journey to transport rails rom har!or to company’s yard - the crosspieces "ere ho"ever deective !ur they still continued the trip - in in a !ridge !ridge their truc "as upset and the rails ell injuring plaintifs / C "hat is efect o negligence o plaintifs employees h- it is contri!utory negligence - 5he pro proximat ximate e cause cause os the the neglig negligence ence o the the company company in in maing maing sur sure e the saety o their eHuipments 4+,4' )* . 4' : C 4angco is employee o rco and "ho avails ree trips rom rco - one evening he rode the train and upon arrival to his point o destination he disem!ared "hile the train is in a slo" motion - his act o alighting "as ho"ever sustained him injuries as he ell upon disem!aring disem!aring !ecause o a sac o "atermelon in the edge o the platorm /- is cangco guilty o negligence or contri!utory contri!utory negligence 3 not guilty o !oth - test o ordinary ordinary prudent man taing into account age sex and gender
&3'#,/8 )* /+4 +,B B/',/*/' : C Bionisio attended a party and drun a little !it he still drove himsel his vol"agon he had no certiIcate certiIcat e o excemption rom cure" that’s "hy he closed his headlights to prevent interrogation o police ut at time he opened it it "as already too late to prevenet a collision "ith a dump truc o &hoenix irregularly pared ase" and also exposed to the opposing direction / /s dion dionis isio io guil guilty ty o cont contri ri!u !uto tory ry negl neglig igen ence ce 3- yes his act sho"ed lac o ordinary care and oresight as "ould aggravate his injury C that is driving ast and putting out headlights ---- !ut the proximate cause is still the irregular paring !y the deendant "ithout adeHuate "arning device such that given the situation created !y phoenix the injury is naturally expected to arise ---- doctrine o last clear chance inapplica!le inapplica!le in this jurisdiction !ecause it is applied only in common la" country as "hen the contri!utory negligence negligence prevents the plaintif rom recovery his remedy is to invoe doctrine imputing to the deendant the last clear chance and thereore can recover
3) V!"#$!% V!"#$!% !& '$# '$#$($ *+ *+ $, VC$ !. #/%$ )iolation o statute is treated as negligence per se "hen the injury incurred !y the violation is the one that statute or ordinance sought to !e prevented )iolation o statute may result as 10 ,egligence that is prox proximate imate cause- "hen "hen the colliding colliding vehicle is in the "rong lane 20 4ontri!utory 4ontri!utory negligence negligence C the pedestrian pedestrian crossing crossing in a no pedestrian
--- violation o statute is not su=cient to hold violator lia!le o negligence 53#.# F*5 # 4',,#45/', #5W##, #5W##, 53# 53# )/''(+5/', )/''(+5/', +,B /,KF. /,KF. *F*5+/,#B *F*5+/,#B %so tama parin per se 0
0) #''(P$!% !& .'---P.%CP" !& V!"%$ %!% &$ %(.# knowledge o the ris REQUISITES C"hen the injured party had knowledge o understanding o its nature and still voluntarily assumed the act he thereore assumes the injury sustained KINDS
#8&.#**#B +**F&5/',- there is a contract o assumption o ris or present negligence
/&(/#B +**F&5/',- the assumption %reHuisites0 can !e implied rom the situation and acts #LLLLLemployer employee relationship relationship employee taes ris that is inherent in the employment a security guard ?? #$ dangerous activity lie sprained anle in !aset!all #g$ a house along side o a rail"ay taes the ris o damages !y operation o the locomotive 5he expectators expectators in a sports sports game to have assumed assumed ordinary ordinary riss 5he passenger passenger in ordinary ordinary perils o the sea LIMITA LIMITATIONS OF THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY PLAINTIFF
10 W3#, +**F&5/', +**F&5/', +B# +B# 5' ##5 +, ##.#,4 5' +/B +,'53#. 20 shall not "aive "aive uture uture negligence or or raud M not not contrary to A !ut "aiver o ,egligence in present is valid %art 11710 D0 not cont contrar rary y to la" la" morals morals etc etc 4+*# ': #8&.#**#B +**F&5/', 5.+,*&'. 5.+,*&'.5' 5' )* /K+.#* /K+.#* : 5ransporto got hold o a Irecracer in his o=ce he said that he can handle the Irecracer during its explosion "ith a tric that the "ill have a good hold o the said Irecracer -5here "as also a joe that the Irecracer is !ogus -a dare "as made that he do "hat he said - he agreed !ut he "as injured and "as una!le to "or !ecause o injuries sustained more that a month - the o=cemates "ho dared agreed to pay him 1??? !ut the otherN?? later reused to !e paid hence tranporto Iled case / "hether there "as an assumption to !ar recovery 3 yes Cvolenti It non injuria urphy vs steeplechase --- !y riding the Oopper the riders assumed the no"n ris o it as understood !y ordinary person
) &!.$!($!(' V%$ FnoreseenA ' such nature /ndependent o human "ill Without intervention Without delay !y o!ligor Bue diligence o o!ligor to prevent injury !eore and ater &roximate and only cause ,a&o4or )* 4+ :- 5yphoon ading had caused the angat dam to reach its high level the o=cers o ,apocor paniced and released a huge amount o "ater to the efect that the properties o rayos is inundated napocor invoed e 3- cannot e "hen there is negligence o the napocor employees *outheastern college vs ca : typhoon saling caused the ripping a"ay o schools roo and damaging other properties
'"ner o latter sued or negligence o the school 3 e !ecause all reHuisites are present the ocular inspection that the u shape o the school is aulty cannot !e given too much credence !ecause the city allo"ed its restoration "ith same design
) n4lountariness-complete defense +ct done against against my "ill is not my act --- as he is under compulsion o an irresisti!le orce or imminent threat in gunpoint 5) P.'C P.'C.P .P$ $!% !% Puasi delict prescri!es J years !ut criminal negligence not %doctrine o relation !ac an act is !y legal Iction to have taen place in antecedent time eg discovery o the injury as "ould commence the prescriptive prescriptive period 0 6#$, 6#$, %!$ 6&%' 6& %' , ' ' ."+ ."+ '(*'$$($(6
•
