Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts (Title II - Negligence) - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Degree of Diligence Required
        
        GR - that of a good father of the family.
        
        XCPN - if the law or contract states the diligence to be observed in the performance.
        
        Determining the degree of diligence required - determined by factors such as the nature of the obligation, the circumstances of the persons, time and place. (NCC 1173)
        
        JURISPRUDENCE
        
        Sicam v. Jorge - Varies with the nature of the situation and the importance of the Act
        
        Far Eastern Shipping v. CA - Generally, the greater the degree of danger to others, the greater degree of diligence required from the actor.
        
        PNR v. Brunty - Test for negligence is, did the defendant, in doing the negligent act, use the reasonable care and caution which and ordinarily prudent person would have used in that situation?
        
        PNR v. CA - Here, SC decided that a higher degree of diligence is imposed upon motorists when crossing railroad tracks, but such obligation to observe the same accrues only from the time that the crossing, or through street (railroad) is properly designated and sign-posted; otherwise even a reasonable and prudent man would be uninformed as to the possible dangers.
        
        Railroad Companies - due diligence required extends to reasonable degree of care to avoid injury to persons and property both in train operations and maintenance of crossings, which includes maintaining signs to indicate the proximity of a railway.
      - SC has historically used common law definitions of negligence:
        
        (1) Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances;
        
        (2) 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 man would not do; etc.
- - - - Test for determining degree of negligence
        
        Ameda v. Rio - Here, employer liable for emplyoee injury if:
        
        Accident arises from employment;
        
        Happens in the course of the employment ;
        
        No notorious/grave negligence. Because employee, of his own accord jumped into water (act was dangerous per se) not relating to employment, he was guilty of grave negligence.
        
        Marinduque v. Workmen's - violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. Similarly, violation of employees orders only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se; Therefore, riding a truck as transportation not being a dangerous act by itself the person riding was not guilty of gross negligence, violation of employees orders only being evidence of some form of negligence.
        
        Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo - Doctor failed to attend scheduled procedeure due to time difference in PH and Hawaii
        Here, SC considered the nature of the operation (nature of the obligation) it being non-life threatening AND the circumstances of the doctor.
        Doctor came from honeymoon + operation for fertility. Therefore, not gross negligence.
        
        Check if the act performed was dangerous per se; If yes, actor performing it would be guilty of gross negligence.
  - - - Raises a presumption that person negligent must have been conscious of the probable consequences of their carelessness; indicates that they were indifferent.
        Amounts to reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property.
- - - - Civil law - Good Father of the Family - Equated with the reasonably prudent man from common law. Similarly, an objective measure but such evaluation of standard of conduct is interpreted in light of the facts known to the actor at the time; There is an expectation of foresight that correlates to what a reasonable man would have.
        
        Personal judgment of the actor irrelevant, instead their actions are evaluated in light of the action that a good father of the family would do when faced with the same circumstances.
        
        Picart v. Smith - Man riding pony refused to change lanes after seeing car - SC: Negligence because some level of foresight is expected from a reasonably prudent man.
        
        Doctrine of last clear chance - party who has the last fair chance to avoid impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences.
    - - 1173 provides that the standard of conduct must correspond with the time, place and nature of the circumstances; therefore no true objective standard of conduct.
        
        Jurisprudence recognizes this - Anonueva v. CA - SC pronounced that there is a greater degree of diligence on the parts of motor vehicle drivers, owing to the greater potential danger posed by such machines.
        
        Similar Case in Pacis v. Morales - Morales was a gunshop owner, therefore held to a higher standard of conduct because of the fact that he had a dangerous instrument. Presumption that he was knowledgeable about firearm safety, therefore had a duty to ensure that all the guns in his store were unloaded.
      - Children
        
        Under NCC 2180 - Even children may be found negligent; guardians may be held responsible for negligent acts of their children.
        
        Several proposed methods to identify the standard of conduct appropriate for children:
        
        Absolute Immunity (No negligence where no care can be expected from a child);
        
        Age brackets;
        
        Subjective, dependent on maturity and capacity of particular child;
        
        Average conduct of persons of their age and experience.
        
        (4) Seems to be making another fictitious person, similar to good father.
        
        Age Brackets - a person under nine years of age is conclusively without discernment, exempt from criminal liability. Because negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict, exemption from criminal liability by analogy also exempts from civil liability if there is no discernment. Thus, under 9 conclusively incapable of negligence but 9-15 disputable presumption.
        
        Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance (Jarco) - One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.
        The principal reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance
        in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing
        or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get
        on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such
        children.
        
        (Subjective) Jarco - Determine maturity of the child dependent on his own behavior, either previously or not.
        
        (Average Conduct) Ylarde - Based on the reasonable maturity of child around his age.
        
        Experts
        
        Far Eastern Shipping v. CA - Experts or people who represent themselves as such are held to a higher standard of diligence. Negligent even if they fail to exhibit care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work they are an expert in. So long as you undertake work requiring special skills.
        
        Pharmacists - highest degree of care known to practical men.
        
        US v. Pineda - Pharmacists covered here. Presumption that they are experts in dispensing correct medicine.
        
        Similarly, customers not held to be negligent if they failed to examine the medication dispensed to them UNLESS the packaging makes it clear that the medicine is not the one that they requested. Caveat emptor not applicable (Buyer alone is responsible for inspecting the goods they purchased; here caveat vendor as the pharmacist is an absolute guarantor of what they sell)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Medical Professionals
        
        Minimum standard of conduct - level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstance.Bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or present state of medical science.
        
        Hospitals
        
        Held liable for negligence of their employees under 2180
        OR
        
        Ostensible agents under 1869 (doctrine of apparent authority) - Professional Services v. Agana