TORTS FIRST EXAM HOT TIPS from ATTY.
PANCHO
by Cid Benedict D. Pabalan
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
As to what would constitute a negligent act in a
given situation, the case of Picart v. Smith (37
Phil. 809, 813) provides Us the answer, to wit:
"The test by which to determine the existence
or 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 person would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he
is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect
adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by
the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The
existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before
him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that."|||
PROXIMATE CAUSE
The proximate cause of an injury is 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. (St. Mary's
Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363,
[February 6, 2002], 426 PHIL 878-887)
REMOTE CAUSE
A remote cause is one that is removed or separa
te from the proximate cause of an injury.
*A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
basis of an action if such remote cause did
nothing more than furnish the condition or give
rise to the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened between such
prior or remote cause and the injury, a distinct,
successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the
injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion. If
no danger existed in the condition except
because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause. And if
an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets into operation the circumstances
which result in injury because of the prior
defective condition, such act or condition is the
proximate cause. (Manila Electric Co. v.
Remonquillo, G.R. No. L-8328, [May 18, 1956],
99 PHIL 117-126)
EMERGENCY RULE
Under what is known as the emergency rule,
"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. (Mckee v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102,
68103, [July 16, 1992], 286 PHIL 649-683)
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
The doctrine of last clear chance simply means
that the negligence of a claimant does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of
defendant where it appears that the latter, by
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might
have avoided injurious consequences to claimant
notwithstanding his negligence. Or "As the
doctrine usually is stated, a person who has the
last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an
accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of
his opponent or the negligence of a third person
which is imputed to his opponent, is considered
in law solely responsible for the consequences of
the accident." (Ong v. Metropolitan Water
District, G.R. No. L-7664, [August 29,
1958], 104 PHIL 397-406)