This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Contributory negligence is the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, which, concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.[59] Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes of the accident.[60] Where the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff's own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the injury.[61] Again, based on the evidence presented in the present case under review, in which no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner, the immediate cause of the accident resulting in Editha's injury was her own omission when she did not return for a follow-up check up, in defiance of petitioner's orders. The immediate cause of Editha's injury was her own act; thus, she cannot recover damages from the injury. | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot excuse itself from its failure to properly maintain the wires by attributing negligence to the victim. In Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[9] this Court held that the responsibility of maintaining the rails for the purpose of preventing derailment accidents belonged to the company. The company should not have been negligent in ascertaining that the rails were fully connected than to wait until a life was lost due to an accident. Said the Court:In this petition, the respondent court is faulted for finding the petitioner guilty of negligence notwithstanding its defense of due diligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code and for disallowing the deductions made by the trial court. | |||||
|
2006-02-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It has been established by the testimony of respondent Noe that he was with four or five other persons standing on the rear carrier of the Fiera since it was already full. Respondent Noe's act of standing on the left rear carrier portion of the Fiera showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It has been held that "to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body.[24] Respondent Noes act of hanging on the Fiera is definitely dangerous to his life and limb. | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Neither can we can adjudge Villagracia with contributory negligence. The leading case in contributory negligence, Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf[58] clarifies that damages may be mitigated if the claimant "in conjunction with the occurrence, [contributes] only to his injury."[59] To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body.[60] To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.[61] | |||||