Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    CAUSES Jofre Recososa

    Uploaded by

    Casa Alvelda
    Proximate cause is the cause that directly produces an event or injury, without which the result would not have occurred. It is not necessarily the immediate or nearest cause. Two tests for determining proximate cause are the "but for" test, which asks if the injury would have occurred without the negligent conduct, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between the conduct and injury. Proximate cause applies to actions involving quasi-delict but not breach of contract. The last clear chance doctrine can establish liability if one party had the final opportunity to avoid harm through due diligence. Multiple negligent acts that combine to directly cause a single injury can result in joint liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CAUSES Jofre Recososa

    Uploaded by

    Casa Alvelda
    22 views11 pages
    Proximate cause is the cause that directly produces an event or injury, without which the result would not have occurred. It is not necessarily the immediate or nearest cause. Two tests for determining proximate cause are the "but for" test, which asks if the injury would have occurred without the negligent conduct, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between the conduct and injury. Proximate cause applies to actions involving quasi-delict but not breach of contract. The last clear chance doctrine can establish liability if one party had the final opportunity to avoid harm through due diligence. Multiple negligent acts that combine to directly cause a single injury can result in joint liability.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Proximate cause is the cause that directly produces an event or injury, without which the result would not have occurred. It is not necessarily the immediate or nearest cause. Two tests for determining proximate cause are the "but for" test, which asks if the injury would have occurred without the negligent conduct, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between the conduct and injury. Proximate cause applies to actions involving quasi-delict but not breach of contract. The last clear chance doctrine can establish liability if one party had the final opportunity to avoid harm through due diligence. Multiple negligent acts that combine to directly cause a single injury can result in joint liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    22 views11 pages

    CAUSES Jofre Recososa

    Uploaded by

    Casa Alvelda
    Proximate cause is the cause that directly produces an event or injury, without which the result would not have occurred. It is not necessarily the immediate or nearest cause. Two tests for determining proximate cause are the "but for" test, which asks if the injury would have occurred without the negligent conduct, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between the conduct and injury. Proximate cause applies to actions involving quasi-delict but not breach of contract. The last clear chance doctrine can establish liability if one party had the final opportunity to avoid harm through due diligence. Multiple negligent acts that combine to directly cause a single injury can result in joint liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    CAUSES

    Proximate Cause

    Is that cause, which, in natural and


    continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
    intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
    the result would not have occurred (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty,
    G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009).

    NOTE: Proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate


    cause; it’s not necessarily the nearest time, distance or
    space (People v. Elizalde, 59 Off. Gaz. 1241).
    Concept of Proximate Cause

    Negligence Civil Liability Act/Omission Damage

    Direct Causal Connection

    Reasonable
    Foreseeability
    Application of Proximate Cause

    The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict,


    not in actions involving breach of contract.

    The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person


    where there is no relation between him and another
    party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law itself.
    But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation
    between the parties, it is the parties themselves who
    create the obligation, and the function of the law is merely to
    regulate the relation thus created (Calalas v. CA, G.R. No.
    122039. May 31, 2000).
    Tests in Determining Proximate Cause
    1. “But For” /Sine Qua Non Test
    Whether such negligent conduct is a cause without which the injury would not
    have occurred or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of
    circumstances leading to the injury.
    [Bataclan v. Medina, supra]
    Tests in Determining Proximate Cause

    2. Sufficient link
    The Supreme Court has adopted a
    relaxation of the “but for” test in Dy
    Teban v. Jose Ching [G.R. No. 161803
    (2008)]. Plaintiff, however, must
    establish a sufficient link between the act
    or omission and the damage or injury.

    That link must not be remote or far-


    fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach.
    The damage or injury must be a natural
    and probable result of the act or
    omission.
    Tests in Determining Proximate Cause
    (3) Substantial factor

    If the actor’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the
    fact that the actor neither foresees nor should have foreseen the harm or the
    manner in which it occurred, does not prevent him from being liable.
    [Philippine Rabbit v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66102-04 (1990)]

    (4) Mixed considerations

    There is no exact formula to determine probable cause. It is based


    upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and
    precedent
    [Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, supra]
    Tests in Determining Proximate Cause
    (5) Cause v. condition
    The distinction between cause and condition has already been almost entirely
    discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of case
    where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position
    of apparent safety, and some new force intervense. But even in such cases, it is not
    the distinction between “cause” and “condition” which is important, but the
    nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause
    [Phoenix Construction v. IAC, supra].

    (6) Last clear chance


    Also known as: "doctrine of discovered peril” or “doctrine of supervening negligence” or
    “humanitarian doctrine”. The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude
    him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant,
    who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
    diligence [PNR v. Brunty, supra].

    If both parties are found to be negligent; but, their negligence are not
    contemporaneous, the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending
    harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the
    prior negligence of the other party [Picart v Smith, supra].
    Types of Proximate Causes
    Principle of concurrent causes
    Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts
    or omissions of two or more persons, although
    acting independently, are in combination with
    the direct and proximate cause of a single injury
    to a third person, and it is impossible to
    determine what proportion each contributed to
    the injury, either of them is responsible for the
    whole injury, even though his act alone might not
    have caused the entire injury (Sabido v.
    Custodio, G.R. No. L- 21512, August 31, 1966).

    You might also like