Write your answer in a yellow pad.

Deadline:

February 26, 2020, 5PM (Wednesday)

1. Tort liability includes liability for legal wrongs encompassing three types of conduct, namely:
(a) intentional torts,
(b) negligence and
(c) strict liability.

Differentiate these three. (10 points)

The intentional torts, negligence and strict liability may be distinguished in the following manners:
1. As to the intention – In intentional torts, the actor desires to cause damages to a person. On the other hand,
negligence and strict liability involve voluntary act or omission without intending to cause the same.
2. As to the relevancy of fault– In intentional torts and negligence, the fault or negligence is fact that must be
established in order the actor be held liable. However, in strict liability, the actor may be held liable without
regard to fault or negligence and, therefore, fault need not be proved.

2. Explain whether or not one can sue a person for a wrongful act which is certainly not punishable by law. (5 points)

A person can sue for a wrongful act even such act is not punishable by law.
Article 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code are catch all provisions that serve as a basis of any imaginable
tort action. It is generally a concept that makes person liable for every conceivable wrongful act. There is a general
duty owed to every person not to cause harm either willfully or negligently.
Consequently, a person is liable for a wrongful act that caused damages to another person although it is not
punishable by law.

3. What are the requisites to be held liable for quasi-delict? (5 points)

The following are the requisites of quasi-delict:

a. There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence;
b. Damage caused by the said act or omission; and
c. Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.

4. Differentiate and give a concrete example or illustration or scenario of the following type of causes:
a) concurrent, (b) remote, and (c) intervening. (15 points)

The concurrent, remote and intervening may be distinguished in the following manner:
As to their nature – Concurrent cause exists when loss or damage occurs as a result of two or more causes,
one of which is covered and one of which is excluded. These causes may occur at the same time, or one may occur
before the other. Remote, on the other hand, is an independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect thereof. While, intervening cause is one that destroys the casual connection
between the negligent act and injury and thereby negates liability.

The following are the examples to illustrate the type of causes:

1. Concurrent – When the captain
2. Remote – A, after being hit by a truck, suffered another injury because of malpractice in the hospital.
3. Intervening – A throws a hot object to B who in turn threw it to C.

5. A. Explain the following :

a. Res ipsa loquitor is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge. (5 points)
This means that negligence may be determined on the face of accident through superior logic of ordinary human
experience and on the basis of such experience and common knowledge.

b. The res ipsa loquitor doctrine is a rule of necessity, in that it proceeds on the theory that under the
peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is applicable, it is within the power of the defendant to show
that there was no negligence on his part, and direct proof of defendant's negligence is beyond plaintiff's
power. Its function is to aid the plaintiff in proving the elements of a negligence case by circumstantial
evidence. (5points)
The res ipsa loquitor doctrine is based in part upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the instrumentality
which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and that
the plaintiff has no knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege negligence in general terms and to rely upon the
proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish negligence.

B. What are the requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor? (5 points)

The following are the requisites of res ipsa loquitor:

1. The accident is of kind whcih ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants, and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.

6. Discuss the concept of the following: (5points each)

A. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – it is a principle which states that even if the plaintiff was guilty of
antecedent negligence, the defendat is still liable because he had the last clear chance of avoiding injury.

B. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance – With respect to the law on torts, this doctrine serves as a limitation to
the rule on contributory negligence. Under the rule, an owner is liable if he maintains in his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to induce children in play and he fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children of tender age from playing therewith or resorting thereto.

C. Emergency Rule – Under emergency 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 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.

D. Damnum Absque Injuria – In damnum absque injuria case, the conjunction of damages and wrong is
absent. Stated otherwise, there is no liability even if there is damage becuase there is no invasion legal right or
breach of legal duty.

E. Volenti Non Fit Injuria – It is called doctrine of assumption of risk. The doctrine involves three elements: 1.
the plaintiff must know that the risk is present; 2. he must further understand its nature; and that 3. his choice act
despite the risk is free and voluntary. Assumption of risk is about voluntariness.

F. Proximate Cause – it is the cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, without which the result would not have occured.

7. a. What is negligence? (5points) – 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.

b. Discuss the test of negligence. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence. (5 points)
The existence of negligence may be determined by asking the following: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence. This is so
because in determining whether the actor was negligent, the court will place itself in the position of the actor and see
if a prudent man could have foreseen the harm that would result if the conduct is pursued.

8. a. What is contributory negligence? (5points)

- Contributory negligence is defined as 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.

b. Discuss the rule for recovery of damages in cases where there is contributory negligence. (5points)
 - If the plaintiff’s negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being
the defendants lacks of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.