Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-2008
*Those in S
(and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in
bold letters and those in the Notes
. Good luck classmates! –torts magic notes team
VI. PERSONS LIABLEA. The Tortfeasor
Whoever by act or omission causesdamage to another, there being fault or negligence,is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such faultor negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractualrelation between the parties, is called a quasi-delictand is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.(1902a)
Whoever pays for the damage causedby his dependents or employees may recover fromthe latter what he has paid or delivered insatisfaction of the claim. (1904)
The responsibility of two or morepersons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.(n)
C L A S S N O T E S
There can be more than one tortfeasor andthey are called JOINT TORTFEASORS
Are you suppose to sue all of them? NObecause you can get relief from one of them.
Do they have to act in concert? NO
Worcester v. Ocampo
February 27, 1912
Dean Worcester filed an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged libelous publicationagainst Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K.Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as theowners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of the daily newspaper “El Renacimiento” (Spanishversion) and “Muling Pagsilang” (tagalong version).Worcester alleged that the defendants have beenmaliciously persecuting and attacking him in thenewspapers for a long time and they published aneditorial entitled “Birds of Prey” with the malicious intentof injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as agovernment official as the editorial obviously referred tohim.Worcester alleged that he was likened to “birds of prey”in the following manner: “Such are the characteristics of the man who is at the same time an eagle whosurprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself onthe dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects apetulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucksthe blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless.”
In favor of Worcester; Defendants
liable for the P60k total damages.ISSUE: WON the defendants’ individual properties canbe made jointly and severally liable for the damagesunder the civil and commercial codes,
Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santosabsolved.The present action is a tort.
each joint tortfeasor is not onlyindividually liable for the tort in which he participates,but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors.If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or personinjured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately,
It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct,corporal act- e.g. assault and battery committed byvarious persons, under the common law, they are allprincipals.Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in anyway, the commission of a crime, was as much aprincipal as he who inflicted or committed the actualtort.
Joint tortfeasors are all the persons whocommand, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commissionof a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to thesame extent and in the same manner as if they hadperformed the wrongful act themselves.Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for thetort which they commit.Joint tortfeasors are
not liable pro rata
. The damagescan not be apportioned among them, except amongthemselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment,for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part.
Theyare jointly and severally liable for the full amount.
A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against the others.The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreementgenerally operates to discharge all.The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which arenot, even if they are charged jointly and severally.
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner issolidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was inthe vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed thata driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at leasttwice within the next preceding two months.*this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.
C L A S S N O T E S
Sir highlighted that “Tort is in its nature aseparate act of each individual” – so no needto sue all of the tortfeasors!
Chapman v. Underwood
March 28, 1914
J.H. Chapman was trying to board a “SanMarcelino” car trough the rear platform when he wasstruck by Mr. James Underwoord’s automobile, whichwas at that time driven by his chauffer.Underwood’s driver was guilty of negligencebecause he was passing an oncoming car upon thewrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, wasnot obliged for his own protection to observe whether acar was coming upon him from where he was becauseaccording to the law, no automobile or other vehicle