Torts and Damages March 12 Atty.

Higuit

Assignment:
Articles: 2176 to 2180

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.

Conduct in general:
- Duty to use care:
- Act or omission is conduct: includes both acts and omissions which involve
unreasonable risk of harm.
- Gratuitous undertaking to confer a benefit: defendant comes under no legal
obligation to confer the benefit on plaintiff; duty is not created by merely
starting to perform the undertaking.

Concept of fault:
- There is fault when a person acts in a manner contrary to what should have
done.
- The necessary care and precaution vary according to the time.
- Only juridical fault and not moral fault, gives rise to liability for damages.
- The fault under Art. 2176 is “fault substantive and independent” which, in
itself, is a source of obligation/ culpa aquiliana.

Concept of negligence:
- Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person, the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby the other person suffers injury.
- Its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the reasonable
degree of care and vigilance.

Distinction between fault and negligence:

- Liability for fault arises from a positive act or conduct.
- Liability for negligence is incurred through omission.

The “no-duty-to-act” rule:

Torts and Damages March 12 Atty. Higuit

- Unless defendant has assumed a duty to act, or stands in a special

relationship with plaintiff, defendant is not liable in tort for pure failure to act
for the plaintiff’s benefit.
- Exceptions: for example, a hit and run driver.

No duty to control others:

- General rule = the defendant himself does not directly injure the plaintiff but
instead fails to prevent the risk of injury by another.
- Whether the defendant, who could have prevented the injury by a warning, or
by exercising the control he had over the attacker, is under any duty to do
so?
- The use of care to prevent harm in the first place.
- Exceptions = 3 categories: (1) statutes may impose a duty to take action and
to use care to protect others; (2) defendant is under a duty to use a
reasonable care for the plaintiff’s safety where the defendant is in a special
relationship with the plaintiff; (3) defendant is under a duty to use reasonable
care for the plaintiff’s safety when the defendant is in a special relationship
with the immediate tortfeasor and in a position to control his tortious
behavior or at least minimize the risks.

Negligence cause of action:

- A person who negligently causes personal injury or property damage is
subject to liability in tort.

Characteristics of the negligence case:

- Open-ended claims: The argument is that the defendant should not have
indulged in that conduct at all or he should have carried it out more safely.
- Actual harm requirement: no claim for negligence will be recognized unless
the plaintiff suffers actual harm.
- Preoccupation with bodily harm and property damage: The actual harm
requirement does not itself exclude the possibility that some purely emotional
harms could be actionable against a negligent defendant.
- Damages when negligence claim is established: when the plaintiff succeeds,
courts award damages for a wide range of injuries, including damages for
emotional and financial loss; victim can recover all damages that are
reasonably foreseeable.

Negligence: conduct vs. state of mine:

- Negligence at risk: Negligence is conduct that creates or fails to avoid
unreasonable risks of foreseeable harm to others; not all risky conduct is
negligent.
- Negligence as conduct, not state of mind: a bad state of mind is neither
necessary nor sufficient to show negligence, and conduct is everything; state
Torts and Damages March 12 Atty. Higuit

of mind may motivate or shape conduct, but it is not in itself an actionable

tort.
- Conduct including acts or omissions: conduct is often an affirmative act. But
conduct can includes omissions or failures to act.
- Intentionally risky conduct: the relation of negligence and intentional torts: A
defendant is not guilty of an intentional tort merely because he knows of the
risk; defendant who intentionally takes a risk may or may not be negligent.
Negligence will depend upon the seriousness of the risk and the reasons for
taking it.
- When state of mind is relevant: the defendants state of mind is not
necessarily irrelevant in a negligence case. The defendant’s knowledge f facts
that make a given act risky, is frequently important on the negligence issue.

Concept of quasi-delict:
- Act or omission by a person which causes damage to another in his person,
property, or rights, giving rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done,
there being fault or negligence, but there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties.
- A person cannot be held liable for damage caused by him, unless he is at
fauly or is negligent and the damage is produced by his wrongful act or
omission.

Scope of Art. 2176:

Requisites of quasi-delict:
- There must be an act or omission by the defendant.
- There must be fault or negligence by the defendant.
- There must be damage or injury caused to the plaintiff.
- There must be a direct relation or connection of cause and effect between the
act or omission and the damage.
- There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Burden of proof:
- Burden of proof is generally on the person claiming damages to establish by
satisfactory evidence that the legal cause of his damage or injury was the
fault or negligence of the defendant or of one for whose acts he must
respond.

Quasi-delict arising from breach of contract:

Torts and Damages March 12 Atty. Higuit

- The existence of a contract does not preclude the commission of a quasi-

delict by one against another and the recovery of damages against the
former.

Culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual distinguished:

- Culpa aquiliana is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which is the
source of the obligation separate from, and independent of, contract.
- Culpa contractual is the act or omission considered as an incident in the
performance of an obligation already existing and which constitutes a breach.

Negligent non-performance of duties assumed by contract:

Article 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.

Crime or delict distinguished from quasi-delict:

- Delict/ Crime = there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal negligence.
- Quasi-delict = there is only negligence.
- Crime affects public interest; quasi-delict concerns private interest or
concern.
- Crime/ delict = purpose is punishment or correction while quasi-delict,
indemnification of the offended party.

Institution of criminal and/ or civil actions:

- Civil action for quasi-delict not precluded by acquittal of accused: criminal
negligence is a violation of criminal law, while civil negligence is a distinct
and independent negligence, entirely apart from delict or crime.
- Acquittal is not a bar to a subsequent civil action.
- Choice of action to file given to injured party: If the fault of negligence is
purely civil, action for damage can only be based on quasi-delict. If it is also
criminal, a criminal action and a civil action impliedly instituted; or a separate
civil action on the theory of quasi-delict.

Recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission prohibited:

- The same negligent act or omission causing damage may produce civil
liability arising from a crime or create an action for quasi-delict.
Torts and Damages March 12 Atty. Higuit

Article 2178:
The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.

Application of provisions on contractual fault or negligence to quasi-delict:

- Articles 1172 to 1174 are made applicable to both kinds of obligations.
(obligations arising from contracts and quasi-delicts)
- Fault or negligence causing damage to another is characterized as essentially
the failure to exercise or observe that degree of care and diligence required
of a person under the circumstances.
- Thus, the existence of negligence in a given case may create an action for
culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana (NCC) or culpa criminal (RPC).
Responsibility arising from negligence demandable:
- Article 1172: Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be
regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
- In the performance of every kind of obligation, debtor is also liable for
damages resulting from his negligence or culpa.
- Courts are given wide discretion in fixing the measure of damages.
- Reason: negligence is a question which must necessarily depend upon the
circumstances of each case.

Statutory definition of fault or negligence:

- Article 1173: The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201 paragraph 2, shall apply. If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected
of a good father of a family shall be required.
- SC: Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk or harm to another. The
failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand.

Test for determining whether a person is negligent:

- Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care
and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation?
- Prudent person? Capable of exercising sound judgement in practical matters;
cautious or discreet in conduct; circumspect; not rash; managing carefully
and with economy.