Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Week 4 - Defenses Against Negligence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Res Ipsa?
        If res ipsa is invoked, expert testimony may be dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. This is because generally, expert testimony is needed because there is need for specific, scientific knowledge to determine negligence. (i.e. to establish standard of care)
        
        If common knowledge allows determination of the proper standard of care, then expert testimony is not needed.
        If res ipsa is invoked, then only requirement left is proximate cause.
        
        Basically, if a layman can say thats negligent then res ipsa applies. Thus, res ipsa cant be invoked in a medical malpractice suit that is based on the merits of a diagnosis or scientific treatment.
        Instead, usually invoked in situations where there is an extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of routine performance that ipso facto suggests negligence.
        
        Voss v. Bridwell - demonstrated applicability of res ipsa.
        
        Plaintiff must have submitted himself over to the care, custody and control of the physician;
        
        Physician has complete and exclusive control
        
        The operation was never performed
        
        Plaintiff suffered irreparable neurological damage (But at the time he got into custody of surgeon he was fine)
        
        The injury was one that does not ordinarily occur in the process of the operation or in the absence of negligence.
        
        Here, expert testimony because grounds of negligence was not on alleged failure to get desired results due to lack of skill or miisdiagnosis, but instead becaus they fucked up.
        
        Res ipsa with expert testimony - Invocation of res ipsa does not exclude requirement of expert testimony. If for example, a particular aspect of the medical case is res ipsa negligent but the other alleged elements require technical knowledge to analyze.
        
        Layman Qualified - Ramos v. CA - layman can be relative to the procedure. i.e. Nurses can be laypeople to anesthesia procedures.
- - - - This means that even if proximate cause was both the negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant, still no recovery.
        
        Easy metric is last clear chance doctrine - if both parties were negligent but plaintiff had last clear chance then no recovery. (PNR v. Brunty)
        
        Said doctrine states: where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.
    - - NCC 2179 - if negligence of plaintiff was only contributory then recovery still proper but mitigated by the courts.
        
        Definition of Contributory Negligence - If the negligence contributed to the injuries suffered but NOT the principal occurrence (i.e. not the negligent act that was the basis of the action) then only contributory negligence. (Rakes v. Atlantic)
        
        Causal Link - Contributory Negligence still requires a showing that the negligence was causally (But not proximately) connected with the injury suffered. (Anonuevo v. CA) - there negligence of biker in not having reflectors, etc. not causally connected to the fact that he was run over by a speeding driver.
        
        Test - contributory negligence when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.
        
        DAMAGES - Affects only actual or compensatory damages. (Casis Paper)
      - Proximate Cause v. Contributory Negligence
        
        Generally, contributory negligence is negligence that fails the applicable test for proximate cause. (But still causally linked to the injury suffered)
        
        Basically, if the plaintiff's negligence did not cause the injury BUT affected the degree to which he was injured then it is contributory negligence.
        
        Effects of Contributory Negligence - Defendant only liable for the damages actually caused by his negligence. Because contributory negligence exacerbated the injury suffered, that portion is cut out. Similarly, cannot be raised as a defense in criminal cases to exonerate the accused. (Genobiagon)
        
        Causal Link - Casis hypothesis: Causal link is remote cause (cause that would have been proximate cause if not for an efficient intervening cause)
        
        Distinction must be between the accident and the injury. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence (MH Rakes)
        
        2 more items...
        
        Fortuitous Event
        
        NCC 1174 - something which could not be foreseen or, though foreseen was inevitable.
        
        Either: Unforeseeable or Unavoidable. This is based on what the average person could have foreseen or avoided under the circumstances.
        
        Application - A fortuitous event does not necessarily mean that a valid defense of fortuitous event can be invoked.
        
        Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
        
        Elements of defense of FE
        
        The cause of the unforeseen or unexpected occurrence must be independent of human will
        
        A common carrier is liable for an injury caused by a mechanical defect if flaws were discoverable (Juntilla v. Fontanar)
        
        The event must either be unforeseeable or unavaoidable
        
        The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
        
        Only upon concurrence of these four elements will a defense for fortuitous event prosper.
        
        1 more item...
        
        The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor
        
        NCC 1174 - FE does not excuse if:
        
        In cases expressly specified by law;
        
        When it is otherwise declared by stipulation
        
        When the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk
        
        Steps for analysis
        
        (1) Fortuitous Event? - Was there an extraordinary event that could not be foreseen or was inevitable?
        
        1 more item...
        
        Assumption of Risk;Waiver
        
        NCC 1174 - an assumption of risk prevents the defense of FE
        
        Assumption of risk - adopts the common law concept of volenti non fit injuria
        
        Basically, if someone willingly places themselves in a position knowing that harm might result from doing so, then they cannot bring a claim against another for the resulting injury.
        
        2 more items...
        
        Assumption of risk can be invoked to defeat an FE defense.
        
        Contributory Negligence - Cannot co-exist with assumption of risk as latter bars all causes of action.
        
        Prescription
        
        NCC 1146 - actions based on QDs prescribes in four years.
        
        Period - begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed
        
        Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
        
        Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
        
        Upon a quasi-delict;
        
        However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)