Albano and Alcantara notes (1993)

Concept of prudent man

-he is one who take precaution against any harm when there is something before him to
suggest or warn of the danger or to foresee it
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
-where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of
the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so, is chargeable with the
consequence, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party
-negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant
where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might
have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs
negligence
-even though a persons own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury
results, the injured person is entitled to recovery
-It would call for its application in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding
vehicles.
-It does NOT arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations
Principle of Damnum Absque Injuria
-damage without injury
-if there is no legal wrong or violation of a right, the act of a person may not result in an
action for damage
Proximate cause
-is that adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of events and under the
particular circumstances surrounding the case would naturally produce the event
Negligence
-failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly
demand, whereby another person suffers injury
-relative/comparative term, not an absolute term
-there the danger is great, a higher degree of care is necessary and failure to observe it is a
want of ordinary care under the circumstances
Res Ipsa Loquitur
(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of ones
negligence
(2) must be caused by an agency/instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant
(3) must not have been due to any voluntary action of contribution on the part of the
plaintiff
Theories in determining proximate cause:
(1) but for or sine qua non rule the defendants conduct is not a cause of the event if the
event would have occurred without it
(2) foreseeability test where the particular harm sustained was reasonably foreseeable at
the time of the defendants conduct, his act or omission is the legal cause thereof
(3) cause and condition test if the defendant has created only a passive, static condition
which made the damage possible, he is said not liable
(4) natural and probable consequences test. The defendant is liable only if the harm suffered
is the natural and probable consequences of his act