Article 20, Chapter 2: Human Relations

Main Topic: Chapter 2: Human Relations
Sub-topic: Indemnification of Willfull or Negligent Acts

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Wilfully Negligence

This article punishes illegal acts whether done wilfully or negligently. Thus, in the law of torts or quasi-delicts - “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done”.

The mere possession of a slot machine or even its operation for amusement and not profit does not constitute a crime, in the absence of a law that regards its operation as a crime. In fact, a slot machine is not a gambling device per se, because by itself, it can be operated legally as well as illegally. Slot machines, which are actually made for gambling purpose, are of course illegal and maybe destroyed by the proper authorities.

Acts resulting from negligence may vary in nature, extent, and resulting consequences. This is why, particularly in criminal cases, courts are given greater leeway or discretion in imposing the proper penalty, and are not bound to mathematical formulas to the lowering of degrees of penalty.

2. Torts

Art. 20 introduces a broader concept of torts in our country, for it embraces:

a. The Spanish tort- based on negligence

b. American tort- based on malice

3. When no Action for Damages Would Prosper

If someone be damaged, he does not necessarily have right to be indemnified. It is essential that some right of him be impaired. Thus, it has been held that no rights to the prizes may be asserted by the contestants in an oratorical contest because theirs was merely the privilege to compete for the prizes, and hat privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed to winners of the competition by the judges. The judiciary has no power to reverse an award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest, even if the decision be erroneous. “Error” and “Wrong” do not mean the same thing. “Wrong” as used in the legal principle that when there is a wrong there is a remedy, is deprivation or the violation of a right. Indeed a contestant has no right to prize until he is declared the winner. If after declaration, he is still deprived of the prize, an action would not be proper.

What has been said herein above applies with full force to literary and beauty contests and similar competitions. However, if according to the promulgated rules, only unmarried girls may qualify in a beauty contest, but the judges pick as winner a wife: or if an easy should in no case exceed 5,000 words, but the prize is awarded to one containing an excess over the maximum number of words, an actionable wrong shall have been committed, for certainly judges cannot violate the rules they themselves have promulgated.

4. When Judiciary can interfere in decisions of Religious Tribunals

On a least one occasion, the Supreme Court has stated the instances when it can or cannot inquire into validity of decisions ecclesiastical courts. In Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court thru Justice Felix Bautista held that the expulsion of a member of the Filipino Independent Church who had not been given any notice or opportunity to be heard is not conclusive upon civil courts when a property right is involved.

Civil Courts, according to the High Tribunal, have jurisdiction to inquire into the jurisdiction of religious tribunals and regularity of their procedure; and may even subject their decisions to the test of fairness or to the test furnished by the Constitution and laws of Church.

However, civil courts cannot pass upon the abandonment of faith by a member of the church   nor upon restatement of articles of religion since there are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of civil courts.  

Insurance is purchased to protect against losses, and a major source of loss, especially in this litigious society, is legal liability. Legal liability is the liability of a party imposed by a court for its actions or, in some cases, inactions, and for which the courts will award pecuniary damages as a form of redress. A legal wrong is either a violation of a person's rights or the failure to perform a legal duty for a party.

Legal liability arises from 3 general classes of legal wrongs: crime, tort, and breach of contract. Crime is a wrong in which a person intentionally inflicts injury, or takes something from another, such as murder, robbery, rape, theft, and so on. Torts are legal or civil wrongs committed against people or organizations, causing them a loss. Intentional torts are willful acts or the willful failure to act when required to do so that causes injury to someone else. Thus, crime is a specific type of intentional tort. Other types of intentional torts include slander and libel, patent infringement, and false imprisonment. Torts result either because the tortfeasor, who is the one who commits the tort, is either negligent in his duties that are imposed by law and not contract, causing someone else a loss, or causes a loss through his actions. For example, causing an auto accident, or failure to make a safe product are torts. Breach of contract is the lack of performance by a party to another to satisfy a contract that the parties agreed to.

Negligence

Negligence is the failure to exercise the required amount of care to prevent injury to others. For example, if you cause an accident that injures someone or damages their vehicle because you were driving at an unsafe speed, then you could be sued for negligence.

In some cases, the law imposes absolute liability (aka strict liability) on specific parties without regard to fault, and, therefore, obviates the need to prove fault in court. For instance, manufacturers are held strictly liable for defective products that they manufacture.

Sometimes, the law designates other parties as being responsible, whether they are or not. Imputed negligence results in vicarious liability, where the principal is responsible for the acts of his agents. For example, employers have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees. If an employee injures someone in the course of employment, then it doesn't matter whether the employer could have done anything to prevent it—the employer will be held liable regardless. Other instances of imputed negligence is through the effect of the family purpose doctrine that holds parents responsible for the negligent acts of their children, or the dram shop law, which holds the seller of alcoholic beverages liable for drunken patrons. If a patron drives after drinking at a tavern, and subsequently kills or injures someone with his vehicle, then the tavern owner can be held liable.

Sometimes, the act itself determines negligence. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, (Latin term for "the thing speaks for itself"), there are some actions so obviously negligent that the law presumes negligence, such as when a surgeon operates on the wrong side of the body. The defendant, in such cases, must prove that he wasn't negligent.

Insurance can be purchased to protect against lawsuits that arise from strict liability and from negligence. However, all insurance contracts exclude intentional torts by the insured, because they are not insurable risks, since insuring such risks would be against public policy.

Requirements for Negligence

Most cases of negligence cannot be determined absolutely, for it depends on many factors. The main measure used to determine whether an act was negligent is to consider what a reasonably prudent person would do, given the age and knowledge of the tortfeasor, and other relevant factors.

Before a court will award damages, the presumed negligence must satisfy 4 requirements:

1.      there must be a legal duty to perform or to use reasonable care;

2.      there must have been a failure to perform that duty;

3.      the plaintiff must have suffered an injury or a loss;

4.      and the negligent act must have been the proximate cause of the injury. The proximate cause is a cause that directly caused the loss or suffering; if the proximate cause didn't happen, then the harm would not have happened.

All 4 elements of negligence must be present before a court will award damages.

Defenses Against Negligence

There are various factors that can either prevent a plaintiff from collecting damages or that will reduce the amount awarded.

Contributory negligence is negligence that is caused by both plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff contributed to his injury, then, in some states, the plaintiff will be prevented from collecting any damages.

Comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to collect some damages, but it will be reduced by the amount by which the plaintiff contributed to his own injury. There are 3 major rules, which differ according to state law and according to the amount of contributory negligence, that determine the amount that the plaintiff can collect.

The pure rule reduces the plaintiff's damages by the amount that he contributed to his injury. Thus, if a plaintiff has been judged to be 30% at fault, then his reward will be reduced by 30%.

The 49 percent rule requires that the defendant be less than 50% responsible in order to collect any damages, and any damages awarded will be reduced by the plaintiff's contribution. Under this rule, only 1 party can collect where both parties are suing each other.

The 50 percent rule permits the plaintiff to collect damages only if his share of the negligence is not greater than 50%. In contrast to the 49 percent rule, both parties can collect 50% of their damages from each other if both are judged to be 50% at fault. However, if the degree of fault is anything but 50%, then only 1 party will be able to collect damages, just as under the 49 percent rule.

The last clear chance rule modifies comparative negligence by allowing the plaintiff to collect damages from the defendant, even if the plaintiff contributed to his injury, if the defendant had a last clear chance to prevent the injury. In other words, could the defendant have prevented the injury regardless of the plaintiff's negligence? If the answer is yes, then the plaintiff will still be able to collect regardless of comparative negligence.

Finally, there is the assumption of risk—one assumes risk by engaging in an activity that is inherently risky, and, therefore, should not be allowed to collect damages if an injury results by engaging in the activity. Thus, if one plays racquetball without wearing goggles, and her opponent hits the ball and injures her eye, she will be prevented from collecting damages from her opponent, because by playing racquetball without wearing goggles, she assumed the risk that she will suffer an eye injury or even lose an eye while playing.

Damages

There are 3 general types of damages awarded for negligence. Special damages are awarded for losses where the financial impact is quantifiable and can be itemized, such as medical expenses or loss of income. General damages are losses that cannot be known with certainty or cannot really be compensated with money, such as loss of consortium or pain and suffering. Punitive damages are assessed to deter the tortfeasor from committing the act again, which only makes sense for intentional torts.

In general terms, negligence is "the failure to use ordinary care" through either an act or omission. That is, negligence occurs when:

somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances; or

somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances.

Negligence is often claimed in personal injury lawsuits. For example, a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident case or premises liability action is frequently based on the theory that the defendant was negligent. Please note that negligence law varies between jurisdictions, sometimes significantly, and you should check with a local legal professional if you wish to know the specific negligence laws of your jurisdiction.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of negligent conduct, and plaintiff's injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. In order for a defendant to be liable, the plaintiff must establish both negligence and proximate cause.

Please note that the law speaks of the defendant's conduct as being "a proximate cause" of an accident, as opposed to "the proximate cause". Many accidents have more than one proximate cause. It is typically not necessary for liability that the defendant's negligence be either the only proximate cause of an injury, or the last proximate cause. A defendant may be liable even where an injury has multiple proximate causes, and whether those causes occur at the same time or in combination. A plaintiff may be able to bring a cause of action against two or more defendants by proving that the acts of each were proximate causes of the plaintiff's injury, even where the defendants' negligent acts were distinct.

Imagine a situation where a plaintiff is driving down the road, and is suddenly cut off by a person who runs through a stop sign on a side street. The plaintiff slams on her brakes, and is able to avoid striking that car. However, the plaintiff is rear-ended by another driver who was not paying attention to the events in front of his car. The plaintiff may be able to bring an action against both drivers - the one who cut her off and the one who rear-ended her - on the basis that their negligent acts, although independent, were both proximate causes of her injuries.

The Elements of a Negligence Action

A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the evidence":

The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the plaintiff);

The defendant violated that duty;

As a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; and

The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.

For example, a person driving a car has a general duty to conduct the car in a safe and responsible manner. If a driver runs through a red light, the driver violates that duty. As it is foreseeable that running a red light can result in a car crash, and that people are likely to be injured in such a collision, the driver will be liable in negligence for any injuries that in fact result to others in a collision resulting from the running of the red light.

Gross Negligence

Gross negligence means conduct or a failure to act that is so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result. It is sometimes necessary to establish "gross negligence" as opposed to "ordinary negligence" in order to overcome a legal impediment to a lawsuit. For example, a government employee who is on the job may be immune from liability for ordinary negligence, but may remain liable for gross negligence.

Similarly, where a plaintiff signs a release (as may be required, for example, before entering a sports competition), for public policy reasons many jurisdictions will apply the release only to conduct which constitutes "ordinary negligence" and not to acts of "gross negligence". The reason for this is quite simple: It is not good public policy to allow a defendant to escape liability for reckless indifference to the safety of others, particularly in contexts where the defendant is responsible for creating unsafe conditions, or is profiting from their existence. Consider, for example, a commercial venture engaged in a high risk recreational activity, such as a company that offers rock climbing tours. If a tour member is injured when safety equipment provided by the company unexpectedly fails, a valid release may protect the company from a lawsuit. However, if the company knows up front that the equipment is defective and uses it anyway, it would not be protected by the release.

Children and Negligence

Minors are typically held to a different standard of care than adults. For example, a minor's negligence may be evaluated against what reasonably careful person of the same age, mental capacity and experience would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Very young minors (e.g., minors under the age of seven) are typically presumed to be incapable of negligence.

Most jurisdictions also consider the fact that minors act upon childish instincts and impulses when considering injuries to minors. As a consequence, a defendant knew or should have known that a child (or children) were present, or were likely to be present, in the vicinity, the defendant may required to exercise greater vigilance. By way of example, a person driving by an unfenced playground where children often play baseball should be on alert that a child may impulsively chase a ball into the street.

Comparative Negligence

When comparative negligence applies, the damages a plaintiff is awarded will be reduced in proportion with the plaintiff's fault for his own injuries. (e.g., a jury determines a plaintiff's damages to be $100,000.00, and finds that the plaintiff is 40% at fault. The plaintiff would thus be awarded $60,000 against the defendant.)

Contributory Negligence

Where "contributory negligence" principles are applied, if the plaintiff in any way contributed to his or her own injury, the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages. The extreme consequence of this approach has led to its being limited or abandoned in many jurisdictions.

One historic limitation has been to examine the context of an accident to determine who had the "last clear chance" to avoid its occurrence, and to excuse a plaintiff's contributory negligence where the defendant is found to have had and to have failed to exercise that "last clear chance".

Mixed Comparative and Contributory Negligence

Some states follow a mixture of comparative and contributory negligence, whereby a plaintiff who is less than fifty percent at fault may recover damages reduced by the plaintiff's proportion of fault, but a plaintiff who is more than fifty percent at fault may not recover damages, or may recover only a percentage of economic damages, against the defendants. (For more explanation of damages, please see this associated article.)

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability occurs when one person is held responsible for the negligence of another. Typically, this applies in an employment context, where the employer (master) is responsible for the negligent acts of the employee (servant) which occur within the context of the employment relationship. For example, an employer may be liable for an accident caused by an employee as the result of the negligent operation of a delivery vehicle. (For more information on liability in agency relationships, please see this associated article.)

Often, parents may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children. However, many jurisdictions have limited the vicarious liability of parents, and some have eliminated it.