Defenses against charge of Negligence

Plaintiffs negligence to proximate cause

ARTICLE 2179
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
 Bernardo vs. Legaspi
FACTS: CFI dismissed the complaint
filed in an action to recover damages for
injuries sustained by plaintiffs
automobile by reason of defendants
negligence in causing a collision. Court
also dismissed a cross complaint filed
by the defendant, praying for damages
on the ground that the injuries sustained
by his automobile, and those to the
plaintiffs car were caused by plaintiffs
own negligence
HELD: The Supreme Court Held that,
both plaintiff and defendant were
negligent in handling their automobile
so both cannot recover. Where plaintiff
in a negligence action by his own
carelessness contributes to the
principal occurrence as one of the
determining causes thereof, he
cannot recover
RULE: When the negligence of both the
plaintiff and defendant is the proximate
cause of the accident, they cannot
recover from each other.
 PLDT vs Court of Appeals
FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Estebans
jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell
into an open trench, an excavation
allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the
installation of its underground conduit
system.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that,
accident was due to the lack of diligence
of Antonio. His jeep was running along
the inside lane of the street but it
swerved abruptly, causing the jeep to
hit the mound. Proximate cause was the
unexplained and abrupt swerving of the
jeep. Court also found that the jeep was
running to fast, The negligence of
Antonio was not only contributory to his
injuries and those of his wife, but goes
to the very cause of the occurrence of
the accident and thereby precludes
their right to recover damages.
 Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo
FACTS: Magno was repairing the
media agua when he was
electrocuted to death. The
galvanized iron sheet he was
holding came in contact with the
electric wire.
HELD: Court said Meralco was not
negligent. But assuming it was
Magnos heirs still cant recover
because the proximate cause of
the electrocution was not the
electric wire but the reckless and
negligent act of Magno in turning
around and swinging the
galvanized iron sheet without
precaution. It is assumed that due
to his age and experience, he was
qualified to do the job.
 Cagayan II Electric Cooperative vs. Rapanan
FACTS: On October 31, 1998, around
9:00 p.m., a motorcycle with three
passengers figured in a mishap. It
was driven by its owner Camilo
Tangonan who died from the
accident, while his companions
respondent Rapanan and one Erwin.
In its Answer, petitioner alleged that
the typhoons that struck its areas of
responsibility caused some of its
electric poles to fall and high tension
wires to snap or cut-off which
caused brownouts in said areas.
HELD: (1) damages to the plaintiff;
(2) negligence, by act or omission, of
the defendant or by some person for
whose acts the defendant must
respond, was guilty; and (3) the
connection of cause and effect
between such negligence and the
damages. This Court, however, finds
that the second and third elements
are lacking thus precluding the
award of damages in favor of
respondents.
Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff
ARTICLE 2179 Article 2214
When the plaintiff's own In quasi-delicts, the contributory
negligence was the immediate negligence of the plaintiff shall
and proximate cause of his injury, reduce the damages that he may
he cannot recover damages. But if recover.
his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury
being the defendant's lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)
Contributory Negligence
M.H. Rakes vs. Atlantic
FACTS:
The truck plaintiff was riding fell
because the track sagged. The rails
that they were transporting slid off
the truck and caught his lag. Later, his
leg was amputated.
Company said Rakes was negligent
because (1) he continued his work
despite having noticed the depression
in the track, and (2) he walked on the
ends of the ties at the side of the car
instead of along the boards.
HELD:
If the plaintiffs negligence
contributed to the accident, he
cannot recover. But if his
negligence only contributed to his
injury, he may recover the amount
that the defendant responsible for
the accident should pay for the
injury, less a sum deemed an
equitable equivalent for his own
imprudence.
 Ma-ao Sugar vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS: HELD: Contributory negligence has
Famoso was riding with a co- been defined as "the act or omission
employee a cargo train of the amounting to want of ordinary care
petitioner, when the locomotive on the part of the person injured
was suddenly derailed. which, concurring with the
defendant's negligence, is the
He and his companion jumped off proximate cause of the
to escape injury, but the train fell injury.
on its side, caught his legs by its
wheels and pinned him down.
He was declared dead on the spot.
The claims for death and other
benefits was denied by petitioner.
 Aonuevo vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
On 8 February 1989, at around
nine in the evening, Villagracia
was traveling along Boni Avenue
on his bicycle, while Aonuevo,
traversing the opposite lane was
driving his car.
Aonuevo was in the course of
making a left turn towards Libertad
Street when the collision occurred.
Villagracia instituted an action for
damages against Procter and
Gamble Phils., Inc. and Aonuevo
HELD:
Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf clarifies that damages
may be mitigated if the claimant in conjunction
with the occurrence, [contributes] only to his
injury.
To hold a person as having contributed to his
injuries, it must be shown that he performed an
act that brought about his injuries in disregard
of warnings or signs of an impending danger to
health and body.
To prove contributory negligence, it is still
necessary to establish a causal link, although
not proximate, between the negligence of the
party and the succeeding injury.
In a legal sense, negligence is contributory
only when it contributes proximately to the
injury, and not simply a condition for its
occurrence.
 Sps Vergara vs. Sps Sonkin
Facts:
Petitioners-spouses Vergara and Spouses Sonkin are adjoining landowners. The property
owned by the Sps. Sonkin is slightly lower in elevation than that owned by Sps. Vergara.
The Sps Sonkin constructed a house on their property using a portion of the partition
wall as part of the wall of the masters bedroom and bathroom.
Sps. Vergara levelled the uneven portion of their property making it even higher than
that of the Sonkin Property. Eventually, Sps. Sonkin began to complain that water coming
from the Vergara Property was leaking into their bedroom through the partition wall,
causing cracks, as well as damage, to the paint and the wooden parquet floor
Sps. Sonkin filed the instant complaint for damages and injunction with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction and issuance of a temporary restraining order.
HELD

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,

contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.
The CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the damage
sustained by the house of Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in dumping
gravel and soil onto their property, thus, pushing the perimeter wall back
and causing cracks thereon, as well as water seepage, the former is
nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only failing to observe
the two (2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but also for
disregarding the legal easement (to receive water from higher estates)
constituted over their property. As such, Sps. Sonkin must necessarily and
equally bear their own loss.
Contributory Negligence vs. Proximate cause

Contributory Negligence Proximate Cause

Both parties are negligent
Additional cause to the injury or
damage
Recover for damages may be
mitigated
Only one party is negligent
Direct cause of the Injury or
damage
Recovery of damages
Effects of Contributory Negligence
 Lambert vs. Heirs of Ray Castillon
FACTS: Ray Castillon visited the
house of his brother Joel Castillon
and borrowed his motorcycle. He
then invited his friend, Sergio
Labang, to roam around Iligan
City. After eating supper and
imbibing a bottle of beer, they
traversed the highway towards
Tambo at a high speed. they
figured in an accident with a
Tamaraw jeepney, owned by
petitioner
HELD:
The underlying precept on
contributory negligence is that a
plaintiff who is partly responsible for
his own injury should not be entitled
to recover damages in full but must
bear the consequences of his own
negligence.
It was established that Ray, at the
time of the mishap: (1) was driving
the motorcycle at a high speed; (2)
was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney;
(3) has imbibed one or two bottles of
beer; and (4) was not wearing a
protective helmet.
 PNR vs. Brunty
FACTS: Rhonda Brunty came to the
Philippines for a visit. Prior to her
departure, she, together with her
Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia,
traveled to Baguio City on board a
Mercedes Benz. On their way to
baguio, they met an accident where
Mercelita was instantly killed when
the Mercedes Benz smashed into the
train.
HELD: The court below found that
there was a slight curve before
approaching the tracks; the place
was not properly illuminated; ones
view was blocked by a cockpit arena;
and Mercelita was not familiar with
the road. Yet, it was also established
that Mercelita was then driving the
Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70
km/hr and, in fact, had overtaken a
vehicle a few yards before reaching
the railroad track. Mercelita should
not have driven the car the way he
did.
 Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS: Rig driven by appellant
bumped an 81 y.o. lady who was
crossing the street. His defense
was that it was the old lady who
bumped his car. TC and CA found
him guilty of homicide through
reckless imprudence
HELD: Court said that the alleged
contributory negligence f the
victim, if any, does not exonerate
accused. The defense of
contributory negligence does not
apply in criminal cases committed
through reckless imprudence
since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade
the effects of his own negligence.