Showing posts with label Good Father of a Family. Show all posts

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Jarco Marketing v. CA (1999)

G.R. No. 129792 December 21, 1999

Lessons Applicable: Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

May 9 1983: Criselda and her 6 year-old daughter Zhieneth were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City.

While Criselda was signing her credit card slip at the counter, she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. As she looked behind her, she saw Zhieneth's body pinned by the bulk of the store's gift-wrapping counter/structure. Zhieneth was crying and screaming for help. Although shocked, Criselda was quick to ask the assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and retrieving Zhieneth from the floor. Zhieneth was quickly rushed to the Makati Medical Center where she was operated on.

Next day: Zhieneth lost her speech and communicated by writing on a magic slate.
14 days after: She died on the hospital bed. The cause of her death was attributed to the injuries she sustained.
After the burial of their daughter, Criselda demanded upon Jarco Marketing the reimbursement of the hospitalization, medical bills and wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. But, they refused to pay.
Criselda filed a complaint for damages

Jarco Marketing: answered with counterclaim and denied any liability.

Criselda was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her daughter by allowing her to freely roam around in a store filled with glassware and appliances. Zhieneth too, was guilty of contributory negligence since she climbed the counter, triggering its eventual collapse on her. Petitioners also emphasized that the counter was made of sturdy wood with a strong support; it never fell nor collapsed for the past fifteen years since its construction.
maintained that it observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection, supervision and control of its employees.

trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim

proximate cause of the fall of the counter on Zhieneth was her act of clinging to it.

CA: favored Criselda judgment. It found that petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter. The counter was shaped like an inverted "L" with a top wider than the base. It was top heavy and the weight of the upper portion was neither evenly distributed nor supported by its narrow base. Thus, the counter was defective, unstable and dangerous; a downward pressure on the overhanging portion or a push from the front could cause the counter to fall. Two former employees of petitioners had already previously brought to the attention of the management the danger the counter could cause. But the latter ignored their concern.

ISSUE: W/N Jarco marketing was negligent or it was an accident

HELD: YES. CA affirmed

accident

pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant
a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening
an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens
occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by fault of any person and which could not have been prevented by any means suggested by common prudence

negligence

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
the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury

Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other
Under the circumstances thus described, it is unthinkable for Zhieneth, a child of such tender age and in extreme pain, to have lied to a doctor whom she trusted with her life. W
Without doubt, Panelo and another store supervisor were personally informed of the danger posed by the unstable counter. Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation nor ensure the safety of the store's employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have done. Thus, as confronted by the situation petitioners miserably failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father of a family.
Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors children below 9 years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment.
Even if we attribute contributory negligence to Zhieneth and assume that she climbed over the counter, no injury should have occurred if we accept petitioners' theory that the counter was stable and sturdy.
Criselda too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence.

Initially, Zhieneth held on to CRISELDA's waist, and only momentarily released the child's hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for her to let go of her child.
Further, at the time Zhieneth was pinned down by the counter, she was just a foot away from her mother; and the gift-wrapping counter was just 4 meters away - time and distance were both significant.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Federico Ylarde v. Edgardo Aquino (1988)

G.R. No. L-33722 July 29, 1988

Lessons Applicable: Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

1962: Sergio Banez started burying huge stones which were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II because they were serious hazards to the schoolchildren
October 7, 1963: Edgardo Aquino gathered 18 of his male pupils, aged 10 to 11, after class dismissal and ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole wherein the stone can be buried.

The work was left unfinished.

October 8, 1963: Aquino called Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde of the original 18 pupils to continue the digging

they dug until the excavation was 1 meter and 40 centimeters deep
Aquino alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging
When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, they got out of the hole
Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about 30 meters away to key to the school workroom where he could get some rope

A few minutes after Aquino left, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit.

without any warning at all, Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening.

Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time

unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall in a standing position
Ylarde sustained the following injuries:

1. Contusion with hematoma, left inguinal region and suprapubic region.

2. Contusion with ecchymosis entire scrotal region.

3. Lacerated wound, left lateral aspect of penile skin with phimosis

4. Abrasion, gluteal region, bilateral.

5. Intraperitoneal and extrapertitoneal extravasation of blood and urine about 2 liters.

6. Fracture, simple, symphesis pubis

7. Ruptured (macerated) urinary bladder with body of bladder almost entirely separated from its neck.

3 days later, Novelito Ylarde died.
Ylarde's parents filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano, principal
lower court:

digging done by the pupils is in line with their course called Work Education

Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person

demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence

CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Aquino and Soriano should be held liable for negligence

HELD: YES. the petition GRANTED. Edagardo Aquino to pay petitioners the following:

(1) Indemnity for the death of Child Ylarde P30,000.00

(2) Exemplary damages 10,000.00

(3) Moral damages 20,000.00

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Art. 2180. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades

Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging

GR: teachers shall be liable for the acts of their students
EX: where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable
Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he:

(1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers

(2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area

(3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling

(4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety

(5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.
negligent act of Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde

it was but natural for the children to play around
the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by Aquino

the excavation should not be placed in the category of school gardening, planting trees, and the like as these undertakings do not expose the children to any risk that could result in death or physical injuries
A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.(1910)

G.R. No. L-4977 March 22, 1910

Lessons Applicable:
Elements of quasi-delict (Torts and Damages)
Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

September 30, 1905 Sunday afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of age, the son of a mechanical engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having considerable aptitude and training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant, who and promised to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine
After leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr. Murphy, they walked across the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the company dumped in the cinders and ashes from its furnaces

they found some twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground

These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and each has attached to it 2 long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the use of electricity
They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power

the boys picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, and carried them home

After crossing the footbridge, they met Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and they went to Manuel's home

The boys then made a series of experiments with the caps

trust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket - no result
break the cap with a stone - failed
opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches

David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents

An explosion followed, causing more or less serious injuries to all three

Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap, became frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck
Manuel had his hand burned and wounded
David was struck in the face by several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons

Trial Court: held Manila Electric Railroad And Light Company liable

ISSUE:

1. W/N the elemnents of quasi-delict to make Manila Electric Railroad And Light Company liable - NO
2. W/N Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. sufficiently proved that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage - NO

HELD: reversing the judgment of the court below

ART. 1089 Obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi-contracts, and illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs.

ART. 1902 A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.

ART. 1903 The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of the persons for whom they should be responsible.

The father, and on his death or incapacity the mother, is liable for the damages caused by the minors who live with them.

xxx xxx xxx

Owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise are equally liable for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter may be employed or on account of their duties.

xxx xxx xxx

The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage.

ART. 1908 The owners shall also be liable for the damage caused —

1 By the explosion of machines which may not have been cared for with due diligence, and for kindling of explosive substances which may not have been placed in a safe and proper place.

in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent evidence:

Damages to the plaintiff
Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.
The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.

while we hold that the entry upon the property without express invitation or permission would not have relieved Manila Electric from responsibility for injuries incurred, without other fault on his part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the negligence in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received

cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted

Manila Electric is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred

2 years before the accident, David spent 4 months at sea, as a cabin boy on one of the interisland transports. Later he took up work in his father's office, learning mechanical drawing and mechanical engineering. About a month after his accident he obtained employment as a mechanical draftsman and continued in that employment for 6 months at a salary of P2.50 a day; and it appears that he was a boy of more than average intelligence, taller and more mature both mentally and physically than most boys of 15

The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion, as described by Jessie who even ran away

True, he may not have known and probably did not know the precise nature of the explosion which might be expected from the ignition of the contents of the cap, and of course he did not anticipate the resultant injuries which he incurred; but he well knew that a more or less dangerous explosion might be expected from his act, and yet he willfully, recklessly, and knowingly produced the explosion. It would be going far to say that "according to his maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care and caution" as might reasonably be required of him, or that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly responsible for injuries incurred by him under such circumstances.
The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his own acts, so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts; and indeed it would be impracticable and perhaps impossible so to do, for in the very nature of things the question of negligence necessarily depends on the ability of the minor to understand the character of his own acts and their consequences
he was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and reckless act, so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury
rule of the Roman law was: Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur sentire

just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he can not demand reparation therefor from another