Torts - Defenses
ARTICLE 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
REQUISITES FOR A QUASI-DELICT
1. There must be an act or omission; 2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission; 3. There must be damage caused to another person; 4. There must be a causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage; and 5. There must have been no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
DEFENSES GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN TORTS CASES IN RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT:
1. NO NEGLIGENCE
This is a defense of denial that is a COMPLETE DEFENSE against any imputation of negligence. The defendant, in order to be absolved from liability must be able to prove that he exercised the proper degree of diligence agreed upon in the contract or required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
In essence, the defense is directed against the second requisite that “there must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission”.
2. THERE IS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DAMAGE CAUSED IS IN THE NATURE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
“Damnum absque injuria” literally means “loss without wrong” or in Philippine jurisdiction, it means damage without legal injury.
It is defined as a loss or damage for which there is no legal remedy. By way of example, suppose that Ms. Lim is driving her car carefully in J.P. Laurel Avenue but a speeding truck hit and bumped her car. Because of the bumping, Ms. Lim lost control of her car and hit Mr. Jumalon. Can Mr. Jumalon recover damages from Ms. Lim? The
REQUISITES FOR A QUASI-DELICT
1. There must be an act or omission; 2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission; 3. There must be damage caused to another person; 4. There must be a causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage; and 5. There must have been no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
DEFENSES GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN TORTS CASES IN RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT:
1. NO NEGLIGENCE
This is a defense of denial that is a COMPLETE DEFENSE against any imputation of negligence. The defendant, in order to be absolved from liability must be able to prove that he exercised the proper degree of diligence agreed upon in the contract or required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
In essence, the defense is directed against the second requisite that “there must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission”.
2. THERE IS NO DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DAMAGE CAUSED IS IN THE NATURE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
“Damnum absque injuria” literally means “loss without wrong” or in Philippine jurisdiction, it means damage without legal injury.
It is defined as a loss or damage for which there is no legal remedy. By way of example, suppose that Ms. Lim is driving her car carefully in J.P. Laurel Avenue but a speeding truck hit and bumped her car. Because of the bumping, Ms. Lim lost control of her car and hit Mr. Jumalon. Can Mr. Jumalon recover damages from Ms. Lim? The