NEGLIGENCE

Alvelda, Apas, Go, Recososa, Fuentes

NEGLIGENCE

 Negligence is statutorily defined to be the omission of that

degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons,
time and place (Article 1173, New Civil Code).
 It also refers to the conduct which creates undue risk of harm
to another, the failure to observe the degree of care,
precaution and vigilance that the circumstance justly
demands, whereby that other person suffers injury (Smith Bell
Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation vs Borja, G.R. No.
143008, June 10, 2002).
NEGLIGENCE

 Negligence was defined as the omission to do something

which a reasonable man, guided by 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. It is 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, whereby such other person suffers injury (Layugan v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 249 Phil. 363 (1988).
TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE

 The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in

a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant,
in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have
used in the same situation? If not, then he is GUILTY of
negligence.
 The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or
negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that (Picart vs Smith, 37 Phil. 809)
DEGRESS OF NEGLIGENCE

 SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE – is the failure to exercise great or

extraordinary care.
 ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE – is the want of ordinary care and
diligence, that is, such care and diligence as an ordinarily
prudent person would exercise under the same or similar
circumstances.
 GROSS NEGLIGENCE – is materially greater than ordinary
negligence, and consists of an entire absence of care or an
absence of even slight care or diligence; it implies a
thoughtless disregard for consequences or an indifference to
the rights or welfare of others.
NATURE OF THE CONCEPT

 The concept is relative and comparative. The degree of care

to be exercised depends uopn the person, place and time.
 “Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is
a relative or comparative not an absolute term, and its
application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the
degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances
reasonably impose.” US v Janillo, GR No. 7255
CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN
DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE

 In considering negligence, among the many factors to

be taken into consideration are:
 Time;
 Place;
 Persons exposed to the risk;
 Emergency Rule;
CIRCUMSTANCES: TIME

 In People vs Ramirez, the accused shot his companion

while they were hunting at night and alleged that he
seemed to have seen with his lantern something like
the eyes of a deer, about 50 meters from him then he
shot it. Unfortunately, he did not expect to find one of
his companions on the spot for he had warned them
not to leave the place where he left them.
 The Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that
a person who was carrying a firearm to hunt at
nighttime with the aid of lantern knowing that he had
two companions should have exercised all the
necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable
accident.
CIRCUMSTANCES: PLACE

 A man who should have occasion to discharge a gun

on an open and extensive marsh, or in a forest would
be required to use less circumspection and care, than
if he were to do the same thing in an inhabited town,
village, or city. (People vs Cusi)
CIRCUMSTANCES: PERSONS EXPOSED TO
THE RISK

 The fact that the plaintiff who was injured is a disabled

person, or a pregnant woman, or a senior citizen and
the defendant was aware of such condition of the
person exposed to the risk, may, in certain cases, be
taken into consideration in determining if the
defendant was negligent.
CIRCUMSTANCES: 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 may 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.
(Gan vs Court of Appeals)
PROXIMATE CAUSE

 Proximate cause has been defined as “…that cause, which, in natural

and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. (G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009)
 Proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause; it’s not
necessarily the nearest time, distance or space (People v. Elizalde, 59
Off. Gaz. 1241).
 To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the negligence
need not be the event closest in time to the injury; a cause is still
proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury, if the
happening of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting
ultimately in the damage.
CONCEPT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

Negligence Civil Liability Act/Omission Damage

Direct Causal Connection

Reasonable
Foreseeability
APPLICATION OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

 The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-

delict, not in actions involving breach of contract.
 The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there
is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the
obligation is created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves
who create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to
regulate the relation thus created (Calalas v. CA, G.R. No. 122039.
May 31, 2000).
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE

1. ‘BUT-FOR’ TEST or SINE QUA NON RULE – Whether such

negligent conduct is a cause without which the injury would not
have occurred or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain
of circumstances leading to the injury. (Bataclan v. Medina)
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE

2. SUFFICIENT LINK
The Supreme Court has adopted a relaxation of the “but for” test in
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching [G.R. No. 161803 (2008). Plaintiff, however,
must establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the
damage or injury.
That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability
will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable
result of the act or omission.
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE

3. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR – If the actor’s conduct is a substantial

factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor
neither foresees nor should have foreseen the harm or the manner in
which it occurred, does not prevent him from being liable.
[Philippine Rabbit v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66102-04 (1990)]
4. MIXED CONSIDERATIONS – There is no exact formula to
determine probable cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of
logic, common sense, policy and precedent (Dy Teban v. Jose
Ching)
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE

5. CAUSE V. CONDITION – The distinction between cause and

condition has already been almost entirely discredited. So far as it
has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the
forces set in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a
position of apparent safety, and some new force intervense. But even
in such cases, it is not the distinction between “cause” and
“condition” which is important, but the nature of the risk and the
character of the intervening cause (Phoenix Construction v. IAC).
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE

6. LAST CLEAR CHANCE – Also known as: "doctrine of

discovered peril” or “doctrine of supervening negligence” or
“humanitarian doctrine”. The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair
chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence [PNR v. Brunty].
If both parties are found to be negligent; but, their negligence are not
contemporaneous, the person who has the last fair chance to avoid
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other
party [Picart v Smith].
TYPES OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE

 Once the negligence is established, the next inquiry will be:

WAS THAT NEGLIGENCE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OR LEGAL
CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY?

 To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the

negligence need not be the event closest in time to the injury;
a cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to
the injury, if the happening of it set other foreseeable events
into motion resulting ultimately in the damage.
PRINCIPLE OF CONCURRENT CAUSES

Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or

omissions of two or more persons, although acting
independently, are in combination with the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine what proportion each contributed to
the injury, either of them is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L- 21512, August 31,
1966).
BURDEN OF PROOF

 As a rule, negligence is not presumed since the

issue of negligence is factual. Mere suspicion,
surmise or speculation cannot be the basis of an
award for damages.
BURDEN OF PROOF

 WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ESTABLISH NEGLIGENCE?

 If negligence is not established, there can be no

damages, thus the need for its establishment.
Where it appears that an injury was received in
an accident, without the intervention of
negligence of any kind, no damages can be
recovered by reason of such injury (Brown vs
Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, G.R.
No. 6666)
WHO BEARS THE BURDEN?

 The burden of proof of proving negligence that is the

proximate cause of the quasi-delict is on the person
alleging the same. (Cea v. Villanueva, GR No. L-
5446)
HOW IS IT PROVEN?

 The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively

established by competent evidence. Whoever relies on
negligence for his cause of action has the burden in the first
instance of proving the existence of the same if contested,
otherwise his action must fail. (PLDT. V. CA)
WHAT HAPPENS IF NEGLIGENCE IS NOT
ESTABLISHED?

 “Where it appears that an injury was received in an

accident, without the intervention of negligence of
any kind, no damages can be recovered by reason
of such injury.” (Brown v. Manila Electric Railroad
and Light Company)
ACCIDENT DEFINED

 An occurrence by chance, not as expected.

 An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly
and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention,
which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to
have been expected, could have been prevented. (Napkin &
Sons v. CA)
PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE

 As a rule, negligence is not presumed since the

issue of negligence is factual. Mere suspicion,
surmise or speculation cannot be the basis of an
award for damages.
WHEN IS IT PRESUMED?

The Civil Code provides for the following cases when the
existence of negligence is presumed.

 Art. 2184- It is disputably presumed that a driver was

negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.

 Art. 2185- Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is

presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic violation.

 Art. 2188- There is prima facie presumption of negligence on

the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 2185

The presumption under Article 2185 applies only to

the person driving a motor vehicle at the time of the
mishap. It DOES NOT apply to non motorized
vehicles like bicycles.
FACTS THAT MUST BE ESTABLISHED

The party invoking a presumption must still establish

certain factual preconditions before the presumption
can operate. Thus, Article 2185 requires proof that
there was a violation of a traffic regulation while
Article 2188 requires proof of possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms
and poison.
DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE ROAD

 In the absence of specific traffic rules, Courts take cognizance

of the “ Law of the Road “.
 The “ Law of the Road “ is the custom or practice that has
become crystallized in to an accepted system of rules
regulating travel on highways.
 It was rules that the very fact of speeding is indicative of
imprudent behavior. It is also part of the law of the road that a
driver must slow down before negotiating a curve.
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

 Presumption of negligence may also arise because of certain

contractual relationship between the parties. Thus, the Civil
Code provides for a presumption of negligence in case a
passenger was injured in an accident involving carrier.
 In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers
are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 (Article 1756,
New Civil Code)