Assumption of risk

62. afialda v. hisole

63. transport v. mijares

64. ilocos norte electric v. CA

65. co v. CA

pursuant to Articles 1174 and 1262 of the New Civil Code, liability attaches even if the loss was due to a
fortuitous event if “the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.” Carnapping is a normal
business risk for those engaged in the repair of motor vehicles. For just as the owner is exposed to that
risk so is the repair shop since the car was entrusted to it. That is why, repair shops are required to first
register with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and to secure an insurance policy for the “shop
covering the property entrusted by its customer for repair, service or maintenance” as a pre-requisite
for such registration/accreditation. Violation of this statutory duty constitutes negligence per se. Co vs.
Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 111, G.R. No. 124922 June 22, 1998

Doctrine of Last clear chance

66.Picart v. Smith

The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge, Seeing an automobile ahead he improperly pulled his horse
over to the railing on the right. The driver of the automobile, however, guided his car toward the
plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. He then turned to the right but
passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened, jumped around and was killed by the
passing car. Held: That although the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in being on the wrong side of the
bridge, the defendant was nevertheless civilly liable for the legal damages resulting from the collision, as
he had a fair opportunity to avoid the accident af ter he realized the situation created by the negligence
of the plaintiff and failed to avail himself of that opportunity; while the plaintiff could by no means then
place himself in a position of greater safety. Picart vs. Smith., 37 Phil. 809, No. 12219 March 15, 1918

67. ong v. metropolitan district water

68. PLDT v. CA

Private respondent cannot recover notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to PLDT considering that
he had the last clear chance to avoid the injury Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 178 SCRA 94, G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989

69. Raymera v. Miceta

The driver who had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident is deemed negligent. Raynera vs.
Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102, G.R. No. 120027 April 21, 1999
70. Phoenix construction v. IAC

Doctrine of "last clear chance" is a common-law theory adopted to mitigate the harshness of the
"contributory negligence of the plaintiff rule under which in common-law countries plaintiff is barred
from any recovery, unlike in our system of law where the Civil Code expressly states that it will merely
reduce the amount to be recovered. Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148
SCRA 353, No. L-65295 March 10, 1987

Doctrine of last clear chance in common law cannot be applied as a general rule in negligence cases in
our civil law system. Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 353, No. L-
65295 March 10, 1987

Prescription

71. Kramer v. CA

It is therefore clear that in this action for damages arising from the collision of two (2) vessels the four
(4) year prescriptive period must be counted from the day of the collision. The aggrieved party need not
wait for a determination by an administrative body like a Board of Marine Inquiry, that the collision was
caused by the fault or negligence of the other party before he can file an action for damages. The ruling
in Vasquez does not apply in this case. Immediately after the collision the aggrieved party can seek relief
from the courts by alleging such negligence or fault of the owners, agents or personnel of the other
vessel. Kramer, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 518, G.R. No. 83524 October 13, 1989

72. Sps. Santos v. Pizardo

the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from crime especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved. Santos vs. Pizarro,
465 SCRA 232, G.R. No. 151452 July 29, 2005

73. De Guzman v. Toyota Cubao