Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Title III - Torts - Presumptions of Negligence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Q. W/N Presumption applies only if the owner of the motor vehicle was inside at the time of the mishap.
        
        1st and last sentence implies that it covers only situations where owner was with driver
        
        However, argument that pattern of negligence of driver is the basis for the presumption.
        
        Q. W/N Single or two or more incidents of reckless driving?
        
        Q. W/N within next preceding two months applies to reckless driving or only for traffic violations?
  - - - However, despite presumption of negligence arising from traffic regulation - Must still prove that negligence was proximate cause to claim for damages. (Tison)
      - (Anonuevo) - does not apply to non-motorized vehicles, even by analogy.
        
        Travel Tours - presumption can be overturned by doctrine where vehicles who bumped rears are negligent.
- - - - Article 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
        
        Article 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
      - General Rule - Presumption of negligence if goods transported are lost, destroyed or deteriorated
        
        Exceptions: 1734 -
        
        Flood, Storm, earthquake, lighting or other natural disaster or calamity
        
        Act of the public enemy in war, whether intentional or civil
        
        Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods
        
        The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers
        
        Order or act of competent public authority
        
        Exception - if loss was under NCC 1734
    - - Common law maxim - where occurrence of injury + surrounding circumstances leads to an inference of presumption of negligence
        
        Elements
        
        The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the person sought to be made liable
        
        Control - Fundamental element of res ipsa - alleged negligent person must have had control of the situation. Usually exclusive, but sometimes control and management is sufficient.
        
        Captain of the Ship Rule - Operating surgeon is in complete charge of the surgery and all personnel connected with the operation. Thus, even if another doctor was there operating surgeon considered as the one who had control and management.
        
        The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
        
        Contribution - only means that there is evidence that removes possibility of negligence of the injured party.
        
        Tan v. JAM - no contributory negligence attributable due based on all available evidence.
        
        The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless someone/defendant is negligent
        
        Speaks to nature of the accident - means that in light of ordinary experience i.e. common knowledge that this wouldn't have happened if there wasn't negligence.
        
        Direct Evidence -
        GR - res ipsa can only be invoked where there is no direct evidence of the negligence or direct cause of the injury readily available
        
        Res ipsa can invoked with other proof i.e. plaintiff can present enough of the attending circumstances to invoke res ipsa.
        
        Effect of Rule - Determines and regulates what constitutes prima facie evidence. Passes burden to defendant to overcome presumption.
        
        Justification is:
        
        Common Knowledge - so can be invoked because certain circumstances raise presumption of negligence according to common knowledge
        
        Necessity - person in charge of instrumentality is often the only one that knows exact cause of injury. Unreasonable to expect plaintiff to have access to entirety of such information.
        
        Therefore, necessary evidence is absent or not available.
        
        Basically, some evidence to suggest res ipsa applies but not enough to furnish full and complete explanation of the process.
        
        Only a rule of evidence.