8/11/2019 Tortsand Damages Case Digest
1/3
Respondeat Superior
Philippine Airlines V. CA
Facts:
Private respondent, Jesus V. Samson, was a licensed pilot
employed bypetitioner. He had complained on previous occasions to
petitioner that hisco-pilot was
slow in reacting and was having lapses of poor judgment during
flights. PAL however
still allowed the co-pilot to fly despite repeated complaints.
On a certain flight, the planecrashed while being maneuvered by the
co-pilot causing brain injury to private
respondent.
ssue!"hether or petitioner is liable for damages.
Held!
#es. $nder the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is
responsible or
liable for the actions of employees performed within the course
of their employment.n the case at bar, there was gross negligence
on the part of petitioner because
despite the %nowledge of the co-pilots condition it still
allowed him to continue flying.
&he law provides that a common carrier should e'ercise
e'traordinary diligence in thesupervision of their employees and
utmost diligence in bringing passengers to their
destination.
As Proximate Cause
(c%ee v.ntermediate Appeliate )ourt
*acts!
&wo boys suddenly darted before (c+ees car forcing (c+ee to
swerve the car
to avoid hitting the boys and in the process entered into the
opposite lane and collidedwith the oncoming cargo truc% in the
opposite lane.
ssue! "hether or not petitioner was negligent.
Held!
o. t is provided that 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 manwould not do the failure to observe for
the protection of the interest of another person,
8/11/2019 Tortsand Damages Case Digest
2/3
that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand,
whereby such person suffers injury.
However, there is an e'ception to the rule. &he emergency
rule states that onewho suddenly finds himself in a place danger,
and is re/uired to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guiltyof negligence, if he fails not to
adopt what subse/uently and upon reflection may appear
to be the better method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought aboutby his own negligence.
n the case at bar, (c%ee had no opportunity to select a better
means to avoid an
impending danger. &hus, he was not guilty of negligence.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
)ebu 0hipyard v. "illiam Lines
*acts!
Petitioner was engaged in the repairs of marine vessels.
1espondent is the owner
of (23 (anila )ity, a lu'ury passenger-cargo vessel, which
caught fire and san% while
under repair at petitioners premises.
ssue! "hether or not the doctrine of res ipsa lo/uitur applies
against respondent.
Held!
#es. *or the doctrine of res ipsa lo/uitur to apply to a given
situation, thefollowing conditions must concur! 456 the accidentwas
of a %ind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent and 476 that the
instrumentality or agency
which caused the injury was under the e'clusive control of the
person charged withnegligence.
&he facts and evidence reveal the presence of these
conditions. *irst, the fire
would not have happened in the ordinary course of things if
reasonable care and diligence
had been e'ercised. 0econd, the agency charged with negligence,
as found by the trialcourt and the )A and as shown by the records,
is the petitioner, which had control over
subject vessel when it was doc%ed for annual repairs.
&hus, petitioner is liable.
