Torts and Damages – Reviewer for Quiz (September 8, 2018) Gross Negligence

Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to a reckless

Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co. disregard of the safety of persons or property; it evinces a thoughtless disregard
of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.
Define Negligence
Negligence is the failure to observe the protection of the interests of another When is a conduct reckless?
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances Conduct is reckless when it is an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury. situation in which a high degree of danger is apparent; it must be more than any
mere mistake resulting from inexperience, excitement, or confusion, and more
See also Article 1173 of the Civil Code. than mere thoughtlessness or inadvertence, or simple inattention.

Test of Negligence Based on Picart v. Smith What was the negligent act in this case?
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same Sarmiento v. Cabrido
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Why was Santos considered grossly negligent?
Define Proximate Cause Santos was a goldsmith for more than 40 years. Given his long experience in the
Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by trade, he should have known that using a pair of pliers instead of miniature wire
any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have saw in dismounting a precious stone like a diamond would have entailed an
occurred. unnecessary risk of breakage. Still, he did it. Thus, he was grossly negligent.

Does the negligence need to be the event closest in time to the injury? Francisco v. CBCI
NO. A cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury, if
the happening of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately What is Standard of Conduct?
in the damage. Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and
Requisite for Intervening Cause to be “Efficient” place.
An intervening cause, to be efficient, must be one not produced by a wrongful act
or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results. Degree of Diligence Required from Physically Disabled Persons
One who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a
Defined Doctrine of Assumption of Risk reasonably careful person who has the same physical disability would use.
The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one who voluntarily exposes
himself to an obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury Why was Francisco negligent?
that may result therefrom. 1. Francisco merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to determine
if he was authorized by CBCI. Francisco did not do any other background
Requisites for Doctrine of Assumption of Risk check on the identity and authority of Bacsa.
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present; 2. Francisco already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, fearing
2. He must further understand its nature; and that they might be stolen property, yet he did not verify with CBCI the
3. His choice to incur it must be free and voluntary. authority of Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel.
3. Francisco relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were typewritten
on a half sheet of plain bond paper. If Francisco exercised reasonable
diligence, he should have asked for an official receipt issued by CBCI.
 4. The delivery to Francisco, as indicated in Petron’s invoice, does not show Degree of Diligence for Hotels
that CBCI authorized Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel to Francisco. The provisions of Articles 2000, 2001, and 2002 (all of which concerned the
hotelkeepers’ degree of care and responsibility as to the personal effects of their
Pacis v. Morales guests) are also applicable, if not greater degree, when the lives and personal
safety of their guests are involved.
Standard of Care for Gun Store Owners
A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under Article 2000
his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss
dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or
dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which
prevent any injury being done thereby. may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to
rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in
Makati Shangri-La v. Harper determining the degree of care required of him.

Define Negligence Article 2001

Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. Article 2002
The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the
Objective Test guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the
The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or omission of the things brought into the hotel.
tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is
similarly situated. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether or not PNB v. Santos (Leonen)
defendant-appellant, under the attendant circumstances, used that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinary reasonable person would have used in the What does diligence of a good father of a family require?
same situation. The diligence of a good father of a family requires only that diligence which an
ordinary prudent man would exercise with regard to his own property.
Define Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous Degree of Care Required from Banks
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces, the injury, and The bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with
without which the result would not have occurred. More comprehensively, meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
proximate cause is that cause acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and Define Fiduciary Relationship
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its Fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe high
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the standards of integrity and performance is deemed written into every deposit
injury as natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such agreement between a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of banking
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a good father
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at of a family.
the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
result therefrom.
Li v. Soliman Essential Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone
Medical Malpractice Suit is negligent;
Medical malpractice suit is a type of claim which a victim has available to him or 2. The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the
her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused exclusive control of the person charged; and
bodily harm. 3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured.
What must the patient prove?
A patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either Adarne v. Aldaba
failed to do something which a reasonable prudent health care provider would
have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonable prudent provider Degree of Diligence for Lawyers
would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient. An attorney is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a
reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the
What is the doctrine of informed consent? business he undertakes to do.
The doctrine of informed consent is a general principle of law that a physician has
a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community Prone to err like any other human being, he is not answerable for every error or
in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever mistake, and will be protected as long as he acts honestly and in good faith to the
grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so best of his skill and knowledge.
that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a
choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none Isaac v. A.L. Ammen
at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the
probable risks against the probable benefits. Degree of Diligence for Common Carriers
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
Elements of a Malpractice Action based on the Doctrine of Informed Consent of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks; over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; according to all the circumstances of each case.
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient
consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital
Principles Governing Liability of Common Carriers
Rule on Expert Witness 1. The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
General Rule: To establish medical negligence, an expert witness is generally obligation. There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence
required to define the standard of behavior by which the court may determine according to all circumstances of each case;
whether the physician has properly performed the requisite duty toward the 2. A carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a
patient. very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances;
3. A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of
Exception: When the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it
need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself exercised extraordinary diligence; and
provides proof of negligence. 4. The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel.
Required Diligence in Case of Sudden Emergency Calalas v. Court of Appeals
Where a carrier’s employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that
he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken Applicability of Proximate Cause
into account, and he is not held to the same degree of care that he would The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not
otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of such emergency but must in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing
exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party.
circumstances and conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the best
judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
part which renders the company liable.
Section 1 – Burden of Proof
Phoenix Construction v. IAC Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
“Passive and Static Condition” by law.
If the defendant has created only a passive static condition which made the
damage possible, the defendant is said not to be liable. Section 2 – Conclusive Presumptions
The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
Why did the Supreme Court not apply the doctrine of last clear chance? 1. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing
to a plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
clear chance to avoid the casualty and failed to do so. of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
2. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the common law last clear commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
chance doctrine has to play in a jurisdiction where the common law concept of
contributory negligence as absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has itself Section 3 (d) – Disputable Presumption
been rejected, as it has been in Article 2179 of the Civil Code. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

Can the doctrine of last clear chance be used in determining the proximate cause? Ong v. Metropolitan
NO. The task of a court, under 2179, is to determine whose negligence was the
legal or proximate cause of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily Burden of Proof in Culpa Aquiliana Cases
an exercise of chronology or physics. The relative location in the continuum of The person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the damage is
time of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s negligent acts or omissions, is only one caused by the fault or negligence of the person from whom the damage is claimed,
of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. or of one of his employees.

What is fundamentally important in determining proximate cause? Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission The negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of
of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or defendant where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and
omission for the rest of the community. prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant
notwithstanding his negligence.
Austria v. Court of Appeals
A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,
Compare with Phoenix Case notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third
In this case,
person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible
for the consequences of the accident.