Group I

By: GAURANA, LIZANNE T.

TATUD, AMIE CLAIRE G.

Salient Terms

What is a TORT?
 An unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages.
 It is an act or omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the
said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.
Notes:
- An unborn child is NOT entitled to damages. But the bereaved parents may be entitled to damages, on damages inflicted
directly upon them.
- Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial being. Corporations are civilly liable in the same manner as natural
persons.
- Any person who has been injured by reason of a tortious conduct can sue the tortfeasor.
- The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide compensation to a person who was injured by the tortious conduct of the
defendant.
- Preventive remedy is available in some cases.

Classes of Torts
I. Negligent Tort - Involve voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others without intending to cause the
same or because the actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions

NEGLIGENCE (Culpa/ Fault)

 The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of persons, time and place.
Kinds of Negligence: 1. Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)
> Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and Contracts, particularly
Arts. 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
> Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
> Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

Quasi-Delict
 Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Notes:
® Negligence is a conduct – the determination of the existence of negligence is concerned with what the defendant did or did not do.
 The state of mind of the actor is not important; good faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment but by behavior of the actor in the
situation before him.
® Negligence is a conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others.
® The determination of negligence is a question of foresight on the part of the actor. FORSEEABILITY.
® Even if a particular injury was not foreseeable, the risk is still foreseeable if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
® Foreseeability involves the question of PROBABILITY, that is, the existence of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood is
of such appreciable weight reasonably to induce, action to avoid it.
Circumstances to consider in determining negligence.
A. Time
B. Place
C. Emergency
Emergency Rule: (General Rule)
 An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if
he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution.
EXCEPTION: When the emergency was brought by the individual’s own negligence
D. Gravity of Harm to be avoided
E. Alternative Course of Action
 F. Social Value or Utility of Activity
G. Person exposed to the risk

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance or Discovered Peril

 The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where itappears
that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to
the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.

Alternative Views:
1. Prevailing view - Doctrine is applicable in this jurisdiction. Even if plaintiff was guilty of antecedent negligence, the defendant is
still liable because he had the last clear chance of avoiding the injury.
2. Minority View - The historical function of the doctrine was to mitigate the harshness of the common law rule of contributory
negligence which prevented any recovery at all by the plaintiff who was also negligent even if his negligence was relatively
minor as compared with the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. The doctrine has no role in this jurisdiction
where common law concept of contributory negligence has itself been rejected in Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
3. Third View - There can be no conflict between the doctrine of last clear chance and doctrine of comparative negligence
if the former is viewed as a rule or phrase of proximate cause; However, the doctrine of last clear chance is no longer
applicable if the force created by the plaintiff’s negligence continues until the happening of the injurious event.

II. Intentional Tort - Include conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes that the
consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

III. Strict Liability - When the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of
certain facts specified by law.

PICART v. SMITH

Facts: In December 1912, at the Carlatan Bridge in La Union, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they
were on a 75 meter long bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.’s car approaching. Smith blew his horn thrice while he was still at
a distance away because Picart and his horse were on Smith’s lane. But Picart did not move his horse to the other lane,
instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving towards Picart without slowing down and when
he was already so near the horse he swerved to the other lane. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the
bridge; the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical
attention while the horse eventually died.

ISSUE: Whether or not Smith was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the
damage done.

Ruling: YES. Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present case, negligence is clearly
established. A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, has recognized that the course which he was
pursuing was fraught with risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as reasonable
consequence of that course. Under these circumstances the law imposed on the Smith the duty to guard against the
threatened harm.
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent
negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have already stated, Smith was also negligent;
and in such case the problem always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted
that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded
the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has
the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

The judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the Picart
recover of Smith damages.