Negligent

Negligent | Classification of Torts | QUASI-DELICTS

CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > D. CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS > 2. NEGLIGENT TORTS

I. Introduction to Negligent Torts

Negligent torts, a subcategory of quasi-delicts under the Civil Code of the Philippines, occur when an individual's failure to exercise due diligence or care causes harm or injury to another. The essence of negligence lies in the breach of the duty of care owed to others, resulting in damage. These torts are codified under Article 2176 and related provisions of the Civil Code, alongside principles developed through jurisprudence.

II. Elements of Negligent Torts

For an action to constitute a negligent tort, the following elements must concur:

  1. Duty of Care

    • There must exist a duty on the part of the defendant to exercise due care toward the plaintiff. This duty arises when a reasonable person in the same circumstances would foresee that their conduct could likely result in harm.
    • Legal bases:
      • Article 2176, Civil Code: "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done."
      • Article 19, Civil Code: Duty to act in good faith and observe fairness.

  2. Breach of Duty

    • The defendant must have failed to exercise the level of care expected under the circumstances. Breach is established when the defendant’s actions fall below the standard of care required of a reasonably prudent person.

  3. Causation

    • The plaintiff must prove a causal link between the breach of duty and the harm suffered. Causation has two components:
      • Factual causation: But-for the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred.
      • Proximate causation: The harm must be a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.

  4. Damages

    • Actual injury or damage must have been suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence.

III. The Concept of Negligence

Negligence is defined in Philippine law as the omission of that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. Relevant jurisprudence defines negligence as a breach of legal duty to exercise care, resulting in damage to another party.

Test of Negligence: Reasonable Man Test

  • Courts use the "reasonable man" standard to assess whether the defendant acted with negligence. This is an objective test considering what a prudent person would do in a similar situation.

IV. Types of Negligence

Negligence can be classified based on the nature or degree of the defendant’s actions:

  1. Simple Negligence

    • Failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would under the same circumstances. Examples include minor car accidents or slip-and-fall incidents.

  2. Gross Negligence

    • Acts of extreme lack of care demonstrating a reckless disregard for the safety or property of others. It borders on wanton misconduct.
    • Jurisprudence: Gross negligence implies a flagrant disregard for the duty to exercise care (e.g., reckless driving leading to fatalities).

  3. Contributory Negligence

    • When the plaintiff's own negligence contributes to their injury, it does not bar recovery but may mitigate damages (Article 2179, Civil Code).

V. Key Provisions in Philippine Civil Law

  1. Article 2176, Civil Code

    • Establishes liability for damages caused by fault or negligence without the necessity of a contractual relationship between the parties.

  2. Article 2180, Civil Code

    • Imposes vicarious liability on persons responsible for others, such as parents for their minor children, employers for their employees, and teachers for students under their supervision.

  3. Article 2179, Civil Code

    • Mitigates damages in cases where the plaintiff's contributory negligence is established.

VI. Jurisprudence on Negligent Torts

  1. Picart v. Smith (G.R. No. L-12219, 1918)

    • Established the "reasonable man" standard, holding that negligence must be judged based on whether a prudent person in the defendant’s position would have acted differently.

  2. Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L-68344, 1990)

    • Held that proximate cause is the primary factor in determining liability in negligent torts.

  3. Phoenix Construction v. IAC (G.R. No. L-65295, 1987)

    • Clarified that a negligent party remains liable even if there are intervening acts, provided the original negligence substantially contributed to the harm.

  4. Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74503, 1987)

    • Contributory negligence does not absolve the defendant of liability but only reduces the damages.

VII. Defenses in Negligent Torts

  1. Contributory Negligence

    • The defendant can argue that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury, leading to a reduction in recoverable damages.

  2. Intervening Cause

    • If a separate and independent act breaks the causal connection between the negligent act and the injury, the defendant may be absolved of liability.

  3. Assumption of Risk

    • The plaintiff voluntarily exposed themselves to a known danger and is therefore barred from recovery.

  4. Emergency Doctrine

    • Actions taken in sudden emergencies may not be deemed negligent if the defendant acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances.

VIII. Damages Recoverable

Victims of negligent torts may recover the following types of damages:

  1. Actual Damages

    • Compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, and other direct losses.

  2. Moral Damages

    • For mental anguish, pain, and suffering (Article 2219, Civil Code).

  3. Nominal Damages

    • To vindicate a right violated by the defendant’s negligence.

  4. Exemplary Damages

    • Imposed as a deterrent in cases of gross negligence (Article 2231, Civil Code).

  5. Attorney’s Fees

    • May be awarded in cases where the plaintiff is compelled to litigate due to the defendant’s wrongful act (Article 2208, Civil Code).

IX. Conclusion

Negligent torts, as defined under Philippine Civil Law, revolve around the principle of accountability for harm caused by carelessness or a failure to act prudently. The proper application of statutory provisions and jurisprudence ensures that liability is imposed equitably, balancing the interests of both victims and alleged wrongdoers. The key lies in proving the existence of duty, breach, causation, and damages, with defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk playing a mitigating role.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login