Tort

Legal Wrong

Elements of Tort
1. Legal (based on law) Right and duty
2. Act or omission
3. Damage
*Damage (liability arising from the loss) v Injury (loss suffered)

https://eportal.nlp.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2021-03/Users%20guide_1.2.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR0TZ72NNhpwfNSkogQv-DfmGgZ35gJxhcUto0NyL6RPBnFX31upRDg6itg

TORT v. QUASI-CONTRACT v. QUASI-DELICT

Negligence is incidental in contracts but in quasi delict fault and negligence gives rise to it.
Contract is strict liability. In torts, fault based. Because you need causality between the fault and
the damage.

Assignment:

Assignment next week: - Same coverage (Chapters 1 and 2) - Arts. 2176 - 2184 - Memorize
what is proximate cause - Torts vs. Crime - Art. 2176 and other principles (res ipsa loquitor,
last clear chance, etc.) - 3 cases - Better recit performance next meeting
CHAPTER 2
 QUASI-DELICTS

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions
of this Chapter. (1902a)

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)

Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from
the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)

Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian
ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only
in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage. (1905)

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,
who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It
is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving
or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)