LIPA is a car dealership affiliated with Mitsubishi Motors Philippines , SFM

Sales sold a Mitsubishi Montero Sport Utility Vehicle to CBI Philippines

which assigned the car to Operations Manager Romulo Uy, while wife
Mrs.Merlinda Uy was using the SUV Car an while doing her groceries in the
car park of Budget Lane Supermarket, Batangas when she alleged that the
car had a sudden unintended acceleration incident upon getting out of her
parking lane by shifting gear to reverse mode which prompted her to
accidentally which mounted the vehicle mounted the car park concrete
stopper and toppled a light post, since engine continued to throttle, Mrs. Uy
felt she might go over the fence, thus she decided to shift the gear to drive
mode when apparently she alleged again that the vehicle uncontrollably
sped up forward even with Mrs. Uys foot firmly on the brake pedal.
POSSIBLE DEFENSE:
The sudden unintended acceleration accident involving the Mitsubishi
Montero Sport SUV vehicle owned by CBI PHILIPPINES can be attributed to
the apparent HUMAN ERROR of the user of the vehicle, Mrs. Romulo Uy at
the time of the said incident. It can be gleamed from the formal demand
letter written by CBI Philippines Inc that you wrote that the service vehicle
you used have only been 6 months old with only 17,047 used mileages.
Based on the said report , it can be used as a defense that the vehicle
user/owner was the one who is the negligent and is at fault due to the
failure to properly follow routinary maintenance schedule such as but not
limited to oil change, tune up, battery check, checking tire pressures, brake
dust, checking of signal lights etc.
We are constrained to say that the car dealership cannot be attributed with
any negligence whatsoever seeing as they were as an express warranty
between the Company and the car dealership before any vehicle/car is to be
sold to any third person. Seeing as before these vehicles of high brand
companies go through proper and routinary procedures as provided in their
dealer operation standard guidelines, to ensure that the Dealer before
releasing/allowing the use of these vehicles , they have consistently given
monthly operation reports regarding the sales, service and parts and
accessories operations, including the customer database in the form
prescribed by the Company ( SEE DEALER OPERATION STANDARD
GUIDELINES of Atty Ada files 2.3.B REPORTING) .
Second, Dealer shall accept delivery of automobiles from Company premises
provided that the(SEE DEALER OPERATION STANDARD GUIDELINES of Atty.

Ada files 3.4. E) Automobiles sold by Company to the Dealer are of good
quality and condition under an Express Warranty. Should there be any
defect found, the Dealer and/or representative shall immediately make an
objection over the defect and submit a written report to Company within
the next working day after delivery.
Interelating this with American Jurisprudence, ( see 63A AM Jur 2d Products
Liability 1108( atty. Ada files) it states that, it is a principle that the failure
of manufacturer or seller to provide adequate warning as to dangers
associated with its products may serves as the basis for a cause of action
against the manufacturer or seller, is widely recognized in American Law,
Althought this is the case, theory of liability involved requires that plaintiff
show that the defendant had a duty to warn , that the defendant failed to
meet that duty, and that such failure was a proximate cause of injuries to
the plaintiff. Relying upon this jurisprudence, it is safe to say that while the
Company/Dealership can be held liable for defects of parts of the vehicles
there is a limited liability rule because in the absence of showing that there
is indeed a defect and duty to warn , then the defendant for that matter
cannot be held liable as to the defect.
While it is true that is the duty of Company/ Dealer (Mitsubishi Corp) to
guarantee upon physical delivery of the car to their client , that it must be in
safe, good and working condition, they cannot guarantee the said vehicle
to be 100% fully operational after delivering the said car in the possession
of the client. Certain outside factors should be considered when the car is in
the possession the third party/client.
(http://www.diamond-motor.com.ph/index.php/service)
Link above shows that Mitsubishi Motor Corporation requires a periodic
check-up of the car to their clients based on the said mileage having used.
Uy Spouses alleged in the report that the car was only closing to 6 months
old being used with only 17,047 used mileage, we can conclude that Uys
had a duty to deliver the said vehicle for maintenance and routine check-up
seeing as Diamond Motors require even at very least for brand new-used
cars, 1,000 km mileage seeing as the Mitsubishi Montero Sport reached
17,000 km mileage it was classified as to being a regular check up . Up to
this point, The Uys should have delivered the car for periodic check-up for
at least 3 or 4 times at the course of 6 months which they failed to do. While
it may be true that a newly bought car is presumed to be at its peak, prime

working condition there is not exact guaranty whatsoever seeing as vehicles

are human creations capable of unforeseen errors.

directly between themselves) for physical harm or property damage that is

caused by the goods.

Upon proper checking of the Mitsubishi Motors, it was found that the
vehicle was said to be in tiptop condition, and the only possible thing to
conclude is the drivers own negligence or fault in not properly applying the
said brakes or careful use of the car in its reverse mode or at the proper
acceleration of the car. While the driver Mrs. Merlinda Uy alleged that as a
defense she has been a driver for 15 years and no such accident ever
happened like this, it cannot be used as a justification nor as a defense that
she may not meet accidents in the future similar to this. Apparently if the
Uys had properly followed the routine maintenance and check-ups then
they could not have a problem in the first place.

Negligence: A manufacturer is liable for its failure to exercise due care to

ANY person who sustained an injury proximately caused by the
manufacturers negligence with regard to any of the following:

Human error has been defined that something has been done that was "not
intended by the actor; not desired by a set of rules or an external observer;
or that led the task or system outside its acceptable limits". In short, it is a
deviation from intention, expectation or desirability.Logically, human
actions can fail to achieve their goal in two different ways: the actions can
go as planned, but the plan can be inadequate (leading to mistakes); or, the
plan can be satisfactory, but the performance can be deficient (leading to
slips and lapses).However, a mere failure is not an error if there had been
no plan to accomplish something in particular. While we cannot say if Mrs
Uy was entirely negligent or there was human error on her part, surely
seeing and based on her own testimony she had apparently complete
control of the SUV vehicle while getting out of her parking lane, as seen
when she reversed the gear and it went on reverse after seeing that she
might cause an accident while on reverse, she shifted the gear to drive
mode and apparently the car drove straight leading to her apparent crash
with a Toyota Revo, which the latter consequently sideswiped another
vehicle, a parked Honda Car.
In absence of concrete evidence to prove that she was indeed driving the
car without fault, we can say that apparently human error can be attributed
to her along with other certain factors, fear, inattentiveness, carelessness.
PRODUCT LIABILITY: NEGLIGENCE
Product Liability: A manufacturers, sellers, or lessors liability to
consumers, users, and by-standers (privity of contract is NOT required,
which means the parties did not have to have a business deal or relationship

design of the product,

selection of materials (including any component products purchased
from another seller that are incorporated into a finished product),
use of appropriate production processes,
assembly and testing of the product, and
placement of adequate warnings on the product which inform the
user of dangers of which an ordinary person might not be aware.

STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY: RULES

Strict Liability: A manufacturer, seller, or lessor of goods will be strictly
liable, regardless of intent or the exercise of reasonable care, for any
personal injury or property damage to consumers, users, and by-standers
caused by the goods it manufactures, sells, or leases as long as:

the product is defective when the defendant sells it (either to an

end-user or to another seller for ultimate resale);
the defendant is normally engaged in the business of selling or
otherwise distributing the product in question;
the product is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer
because of its defective condition;
the plaintiff suffers physical harm to self or property as a result of
using or consuming the product,
which is proximately caused by the defective condition of the
product; and
the product must not have been substantially changed between the
time it was sold or otherwise distributed by the defendant and the
time the injury occurred.

STRICT LIABILITY: DEFENSES

Assumption of Risk: The defendant must show that (i) the plaintiff knew
and appreciated the risk created by the alleged product defect, and (ii) the
plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, even though it was unreasonable to
do so. For example, I use a beta computer software program which is
clearly labeled and required to be checked off as such, and my data is
forever destroyed due to a bug in the beta program. Shame on me!
Product Misuse: The defendant must show that (i) the plaintiff was using
the product in some way for which it was not designed, and (ii) the
plaintiffs misuse was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, such
that the defendant would be required to safeguard against it. For
example, I purposefully stand on a trash can to change a light bulb, it caves
in, and I am hurt.
Commonly-Known Danger: The defendant must show that the plaintiffs
injury resulted from a danger so commonly known by the general public
that the defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff.For example, using a knife.

Most automotive product liability lawsuits involve allegations that a

occupant sustained injuries (or that their injuries were more severe)
because of design flaws or manufacturing defects which made the vehicle
uncrashworthy. The concept of crashworthiness relates to the ability of
a motor vehicle to withstand a collision and protect the occupants from
serious injury during the crash sequence. A crashworthy vehicle
incorporates safety features which increase its ability to prevent or reduce
the severity of occupant injuries in the event of an accident. Defects which
render a vehicle uncrashworthy play no role in causing the crash to occur.
Instead, uncrashworthy vehicles have design flaws or defective conditions
which cause or contribute to avoidable severe occupant injury during the
crash. In this type of automotive product liability case, the plaintiff alleges
that he would not have been injured at all or he would not have suffered a
severe injury if the uncrashworthy vehicle had been designed in a safer way
to better protect its occupants, or if a safety feature (such as a seatbelt or
airbag) had worked properly at the time of the accident.
The Duty to Design and Produce Crashworthy Vehicles

Knowledgeable User: If a particular danger is or should be commonly

known by particular users of the product, the manufacturer need not warn
those particular users. For example, an electrician using commonly used
electric connectors and related materials.
STRICT LIABILITY: DEFENSES Statutory
Federal Preemption: A manufacturer who complies with federal safety
regulations in manufacturing its product may be able to avoid liability under
state products liability law. However, court decisions on this theory have not
been consistent.
Statute of Limitations: A typical statute of limitations requires that an
action be brought within a specified period after the plaintiffs cause of
action accrued or within a specified period after the plaintiff discovered or
should have discovered her injuries.
Statute of Repose: Regardless of whether a plaintiff has discovered her
injuries, many states also have statutes of repose which set absolute outer
limits on the time within which an action must be brought.
Automotive Product Liability Lawsuits Based
Upon Allegations That a Vehicle Was Uncrashworthy

The product liability laws in Georgia and most other states require that
automakers exercise reasonable care to maximize the crashworthiness of
the cars, trucks, vans and SUVs they produce in this country. The duty to
design and build crashworthy vehicles arises because it is foreseeable that
any given motor vehicle will be involved in some type of accident, and that
such accidents pose substantial risk of death and injury to the driver and
passengers. Because the foreseeable use of a vehicle clearly includes the
significant risk of an accident, the manufacturer has the legal obligation to
design and make that vehicle as safe as reasonably possible for the
occupants who will be exposed to the forces and circumstances known to
occur during most crash sequences. Among other things, a crashworthy
vehicle should be designed to absorb and dissipate the forces of impact,
maintain the integrity of the occupant compartment, provide adequate
occupant restraint, prevent occupant ejection, and guard against a postcollision fuel fed fire. In short, automakers have a responsibility to produce
crashworthy vehicles which reduce the risk that occupants will sustain
severe or fatal injuries during an automobile accident.
With the advance of technology, what constitutes a crashworthy vehicle
constantly changes. For example, twenty years ago, a car was not
considered uncrashworthy because of the absence of airbags. Today,

airbags are a standard feature on all newer motor vehicles and any current
model vehicle without airbags would likely be considered uncrashworthy. In
addition to airbags, there have been many other design improvements and
safety features added to enhance the crashworthiness of cars, vans, and
SUVs during the last few decades. In some vehicles, such crashworthy
enhancements have included lap/shoulder seatbelts, crumple zones, more
effective bumpers, side impact protection, reinforced fuel tanks, improved
interior padding, use of laminated glass windows, and Electronic Stability
Control (ESC). Airbags and these other safety features were developed
because automakers have an ongoing duty to advance safety. This
continuous duty to improve crashworthiness requires the utilization of safer
designs and better occupant protection features as they become
technologically and economically available. Auto manufacturers cannot lag
behind the advance of technology. When they do, they are exposed to
automotive product liability lawsuits claiming that they failed to exercise
reasonable care in the design and production of a crashworthy car, truck,
van or SUV.

https://www.shsu.edu/~klett/CH%206%20NEW%20PRODUCT%20LIABILIT
Y%20NEGLIGENCE.htm

(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a
community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons,
although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals
may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the
foregoing definition.
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or
refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner or
possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any
person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or
private.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

http://www.raglandjones.com/lawyer-attorney-1365148.html
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
http://www.diamond-motor.com.ph/index.php/service
(2) A civil action; or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_error
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

REFERENCES

Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition

of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the
remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public
nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not
abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public
nuisance.

Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public

nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially
injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property
to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.

personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The
employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature
of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be
liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of due care contributed
to his death or injury, the compensation shall be equitably reduced.
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may
escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles
and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious
or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers. (n)

Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or
CONSUMERS ACT
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing,
or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance,
without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury.
However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement
of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a
nuisance shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real
nuisance.
Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay
compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen,
mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been
purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or

ARTICLE 2. Declaration of Basic Policy -It is the policy of the State to protect
the interest of the consumer, promote his general welfare and to establish
standards of conduct for business and industry. Towards this end, the State
shall implement measures to achieve the following objectives:
a. protection against hazards to health and safety;
b. protection against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and
practices;
c. provision of information and education to facilitate sound choice and the
proper exercise of rights by the consumer;
d. provision of adequate rights and means of redress; and
e. involvement of consumer representatives in the formulation of social and
economic policies.