Test torts

This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts
himself in a dangerous situation cannot later on sue for any resulting
injuries.

1. The one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities

or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who
is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.

2. Although there was physical damage, there was no legal injury in

view of the fortuitous event.

3. One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is required

to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails
to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have
been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence.

4. It is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person

who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal
relationship to the person who did the act negligently.

5. The negligence of the servant is the negligence of the master.

6. Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who
had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do is
chargeable with the loss.
 7.  Under this doctrine, the operating surgeon is the person in complete
charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the
operation.

8. Under this doctrine, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the
negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital,
regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor,
unless the patient knows, or should have known, that the physician
is an independent contractor.

9. This is one of the defenses available which bars or reduces a

plaintiff’s right to recover against a negligent tortfeasor if the
defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and
knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous
activity in which he was participating at the time of his or her injury.

10.Differentiate the following. (2 points each)

a. delict and crime

b. wilful injury and wanton negligence
c. accident and negligence
d. partial defense and complete defense
e. damages and injury
Answer briefly with legal basis.

1.May a person be liable for damages based on a quasi delict if there is a

contract? (5 points)
2. Bong was bumped by Benjo, a driver on January 1, 2000. It took
several years for his full recovery after different series of operations and
therapy. On January 1, 2010, Bong, through counsel filed a complaint
based on quasi-delict. Will the action prosper? Why? (5 points)
3. In Exconde vs. Capuno the father was held liable for the negligent act
committed by his child, whereas in Cuadra vs. Monfort the father was
absolved from liability for the negligent act committed by his child. In both
cases, the negligent acts were done when both children were not under
the control, supervision and custody of their father. Reconcile the two
rulings of the high Court. (10 points)
4. A 2-year old child was bitten by Garfield, a Persian cat, in the
possession of Blippi. The child developed hydrophobia, a symptom of
rabies and died of asphyxiabroncho-pneumonia, a complication of rabies.
Can Blippi be held liable? (5 points)
5. While walking along Taft Avenue one rainy season, Lian fell into a
manhole, where he suffered injuries. He sued the City of Manila for
damages. (5 points) a. Is the City of Manila liable for damages? Why? b.
Can the City of Manila interpose the defense that the road does not
belong to it?
6. Draco and Serena decided to get married. Two (2) days before the
date, Draco left a note postponing the wedding. On the next day, he sent
a text message assuring Serena that the planned wedding will push
through. However, said assurance of Draco was not fulfilled by him.
Serena instituted a suit for the breach of Draco’s promise to marry her.
Will the suit prosper? (5 points)
7. On March 16, 2020, Mr. Covid obtained a loan of Php.1,000,000.00
from his friend Mr. Vilsa. The promissory note did not stipulate any
payment of interest. The note was due on March 16, 2021 but before this
date the two became political enemies. Mr. Covid, deliberately defaulted in
paying the note, thus forcing Mr. Vilsa to sue him.
1. What actual damages can Mr. Vilsa recover? (5 points)
2. Can Mr. Vilsa ask for moral damages from Mr. Covid? (5 points)
3. Can Mr. Vilsa ask for nominal damages? (5 points)
4. Can Mr. Vilsa ask for temperate damages? (5 points)
5. Can Mr. Vilsa ask for attorney’s fees? (5 points)