TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER | Prepared by lawstudentjen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEGLIGENCE (1) damage to plaintiff;
- It is the failure to observe (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which
defendant, or some person for whose acts
- For the protection of the interests of he must respond was guilty; and
another person
(3) connection of cause and effect between
- That degree of care, precaution, and such negligence and damage.
vigilance
- Which the circumstances justly demand
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
- Whereby such other person suffers It is conduct on the part of the injured party,
injury contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
Note: suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection.
All that the law requires is that it is perpetually
compelling upon a person to use that care and In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only
diligence expected of sensible men under when it contributes proximately to the injury,
comparable circumstances. (PNR vs. CA) and not simply a condition for its occurrence.
Negligence is the omission to do something which To hold a person as having contributed to his
a reasonable man, guided by those considerations injuries, it must be shown that he performed an
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human act that brought about his injuries in disregard of
affairs, would do, or the doing of something which warning or signs of an impending danger to
a prudent and reasonable man would not do. health and body.
Negligence is want of the care required by the To prove contributory negligence, it is still
circumstances. It is relative or comparative, not necessary to establish a causal link, although not
an absolute, term and its application depends proximate, between the negligence of the party
upon (1) the situation of the parties and the (2) and the succeeding injury.
degree of care and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably require.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
In determining whether or not there is negligence
on the part of the parties in a given situation, The doctrine of last clear chance states that where
jurisprudence has laid down the following test: both parties are negligent but the negligent act of
Did defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, one is appreciably later than that of the other, or
use that reasonable care and caution which an where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the negligence caused the loss, the one who had the
same situation? If not, the person is guilty of last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed
negligence. to do so, is chargeable with the loss.
The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of
be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering
discreet pater familias of the Roman law. damages caused by the supervening negligence of
defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent
REQUISITES TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM BASED ON the impending harm by the exercise of due
QUASI-DELICT diligence. (PNR vs. Brunty)
In a long line of cases, the Court held that in order NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE
to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the
following requisites must concur: Tantamount to gross negligence.
TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER | Prepared by lawstudentjen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want of even slight care and diligence.
An open and reckless disregard of one’s safety.
Sec. 2 of RA 772
Grounds for compensation.—When any employee
receives a personal injury from any accident
arising out of and in the course of the
employment, or contracts any illness directly
caused by such employment, or the result of the
nature of such employment, his employer shall
pay compensation in the sums and to the persons
hereinafter specified.
Sec. 4 of Act No. 2428
Injuries not covered.—Compensation shall not be
allowed for injuries caused (1) by the voluntary
intent of the employee to inflict such injury upon
himself or another person; (2) by drunkenness on
the part of the laborer who had the accident; (3)
by notorious negligence of the same.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Gross negligence is defined to be the want of even
slight care and diligence.
Gross negligence is meant 'such entire want of
care as to raise a presumption that the person in
fault is conscious of the probable consequences of
carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the
danger of injury to person or property of others.’
(Amedo vs. Rio)
“Gross negligence” implies a want or absence of or
failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the
entire absence of care.
It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences
without exerting any effort to avoid them.
It is characterized by want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there
is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. (Ilao-Oreta vs. Ronquillo)
