Scribd
Upload
10 views2 pages

Points To Ponder - Torts

tortious

Uploaded by

ecalota
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views2 pages

Points To Ponder - Torts

tortious

Uploaded by

ecalota
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those

considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to
the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his
own protection.

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated
as follows: 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 situation?) If not, then
he is guilty of negligence.

Proximate cause has been defined as:

. . . that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any


efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred

Under the "emergency rule" adopted by this Court in Gan vs. Court of Appeals, an individual who
16

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, unless
the emergency was brought by his own negligence

Last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of
the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by
the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to
avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof

The doctrine of the last clear chance simply, means that the negligence of a claimant does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to
claimant notwithstanding his negligence.

The presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That
presumption, however, is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure. 59 Their only possible defense is
that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE; WHEN APPLICABLE. — The doctrine of last clear
chance applies only in a situation where the defendant, having the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so, becomes liable for all the consequences of the accident
notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy