Report on Torts and Damages-Oct 17-09

8/4/2019 Report on Torts and Damages-Oct 17-09

1/35

Chapter 5 - CAUSATION


2/35

OVERVIEW

1. Definition of Proximate Cause

2. Distinguished from Other Terms3. Tests of Proximate Cause4. Tests Applied in the Philippines5. Cause and Condition6. Efficient Intervening Cause7. Contributory Negligence8. Last Clear Chance


3/35

1. Definition of Proximate Cause

- that cause which, in natural andcontinuous sequence, unbroken by anyefficient intervening cause, producesthe injury and without which the result

would not have occurred (Blacks LawDictionary)

Proximate cause is the procuring efficient and

predominant cause


4/35

2. Distinguished from Other Terms

A. Remote Cause

- that cause which some independentforce merely took advantage of toaccomplish something that is not the

natural effect thereofCase:

Gabeto vs. Araneta


5/35

B. Nearest Cause

- that cause which is the last link in thechain of events; the nearest in point oftime or relation


A. Remote Cause


6/35

C. Concurrent Causes The actor is liable even if the active and

substantially simultaneous operation of theeffects of a third persons innocent, tortious or

criminal act is also a substantial factor in bringingabout the harm so long as the actors negligent conductactively and continuously operate to bring about harmto another. (Africa vs. Caltex)


B. Nearest CauseA. Remote Cause

Cases:

Sabido vs. CustodioVinluan vs. CA


7/35

A. Cause-in-Fact Tests(1) Sine Qua Non Test

3. Tests of Proximate Cause

- if the damage would not have resultedhad there been no negligence on the partof the defendant


8/35


(2)Substantial Factor Test


- the causes set in motion by the defendantmust continue until the moment of the

damage or at least down the setting in motionof the final active injurious force whichimmediately produced or preceded thedamage


9/35



(3) Necessary and Sufficient (NESS) Test


Whether a particular condition qualifies as acasually relevant factor will depend on

whether it was necessary to complete a set ofconditions jointly sufficient to account for thegiven occurrence.


10/35





necessary condition is a circumstance inwhose absence the event cannot occur, whilesufficient condition is a circumstance in

whose presence the event must occur


11/35

B. Policy Tests

3. Tests of Proximate CauseA. Cause-in-Fact Tests

- if the defendants negligence was the cause-in-fact, the inquiry shifts to the question oflimit of the defendants liability


12/35

A. Cause-in-Fact Tests

4. Tests Applied in the Philippines

(1) but for or sine qua non test

- The cause should be that without which thedamages would not have resulted


13/35




(2) Substantial Factor Test


14/35


Case:

Pilipinas Bank vs. Hon. CA



(2) Substantial Factor Test



15/35

B. Policy Testsa. Rule under the 1889 Civil Code



x x x The liability of the present defendantincludes only those damages which wereforeseen or may have been foreseen at the timeof the accident, and which are the necessary andimmediate consequences of his fault. (Algarra vs.Sandejas, 1914)


16/35

B. Policy Testsa. Rule under the 1889 Civil Code

b. Rule under the New Civil Code



Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the

defendant shall be liable for all damages whichare the natural and probable consequences of theact or omission complained of. It is not necessarythat such damages have been foreseen or couldhave reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.


17/35

5. Cause and Condition

- Traditionally, courts maintain that thedefendants act or omission is not consideredthe cause if it merely created a passivestatic condition

- In Phoenix Construction vs. IAC the SC adopted theview that this is no longer practicable to distinguishbetween cause and condition; the distinction of cause and condition is not important but thenature of the risk and the character of the interveningcause


18/35

A. Types of Dangerous Conditions

(1) Those that are inherently dangerous;

(2) Those where a person places a thing whichis not dangerous in itself, in a dangerousposition; and

(3) Those involving products and other thingswhich are dangerous because they aredefective

Rodrigueza vs. The Manila Railroad Co.

5. Cause and Condition


19/35

6. Efficient Intervening Cause

A. Definition and Concept

- one that destroys the causal connectionbetween the negligent act and injuryand thereby negatives liability

- novus actus interviens


20/35


B. Foreseeable Intervening Cause


Foreseeable intervening cause cannot beconsidered sufficient intervening causes

- If the intervening cause is one which in ordinaryhuman experience is reasonably to be anticipated,or one which the defendant has reason toanticipate under the particular circumstances, the

defendant may be negligent, among other reasons,because of failure to guard against it; or thedefendant may be negligent only for that reason.


21/35



a. Medical Treatment


- The rule is based on the reasoning that theadditional harm is either:

(1) a part of the original injury,(2) the natural and probable consequences of

the original negligence

(3) the normal incidence of medical care

necessitated by the original negligence


22/35



a. Medical Treatment


Cases:

Vda. De Bataclan vs. MedinaTeague vs. Hernandez

Urbano vs. Hon. IAC


23/35


C. Unforeseen and Unexpected Act or CauseB. Foreseeable Intervening CauseA. Definition and Concept

- The intervention of an unforeseen andunexpected cause, is not sufficient to

relieve a wrongdoer from consequences ofnegligence, if such negligence directly andproximately cooperates with theindependent cause in the resulting injury.


24/35

7. Contributory Negligence

- Plaintiffs negligence was only contributory and the immediateand proximate cause of the injurybeing the defendants negligence.


25/35


A. Plaintiffs Negligence is the Cause

- the negligence of the plaintiff is notcontributory negligence if it is the onlycause, that is, it is necessary and

sufficient to cause damage and injury

- no recovery

(Alternative Situations)


26/35


B. Compound Causes


- the negligence of the plaintiff is sufficient tobring about the effect but his negligence occurssimultaneously with that of the defendant. The

latters negligence is equally sufficient but notnecessary for the effect because the damagewould still have resulted due to plaintiffsnegligence.

- no recovery



27/35

C. Part of the Same Causal Set


B. Compound Causes


- plaintiffs negligence cooperated defendantsnegligence in order to bring about damage or

injury

- the court is free to determine extent of mitigation of defendants liability defendingupon the circumstances



28/35

D. Defendants Negligence is the Only Cause


B. Compound Causes


C. Part of the Same Causal Set

- damage to plaintiff solely the result of defendants negligence but plaintiffsnegligence aggravated the damage/injury

- defendants liability shall be mitigated



29/35

8. Last Clear Chance

- the person who has the last fair chance to

avoid the impending harm and fails to doso is chargeable with the consequences,without reference to the prior negligence ofthe other party


30/35

a. Prevailing View

8. Last Clear ChanceA. Alternative Views

- the doctrine having been reiterated, or at least discussed,in the number of cases leads us to conclude that the

weight of authority indicates its applicability in this

jurisdiction


31/35

b. Minority View

a. Prevailing View


- Justice Feliciano expressed reservations over itsapplicability in this jurisdiction

- To accept this principle is to come too close to wipingout the fundamental principle of law that a man mustrespond for the foreseeable consequences of his ownnegligent act or omission (Phoenix Construction Inc. vs.IAC)


32/35

c. Third View

b. Minority View

a. Prevailing View


- The two doctrines (comparative negligence and last clear

chance) are not considered inconsistent in any way if thelast clear chance doctrine is viewed as a rule or phase ofproximate cause.


33/35


B. Cases When the Doctrine was Applied

Case:

Glan Peoples Lumber and Hardware vs. IAC

A. Alternative Views


34/35

C. Cases When the Doctrine was heldInapplicable


B. Cases When the Doctrine was AppliedA. Alternative Views

Cases:

Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa

LBC Air Cargo vs. CA


35/35

Documents

Report on Torts and Damages-Oct 17-09