Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 People v. Desalina
Antonio: Ah! That's a good question, actually I handled a case where... (facts of Anonuevo v. CA) ... the court held
that 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.
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.
Char: Sir, we have a question here from our twitter account. It says here: "How about the Tanay Bus Accident is
it considered as a Contributory Negligence on the part of the bus driver?"
Antonio: (Ikaw na bahala kung pano mo sasagutan mehehe xD)
Char: Sir, I'm a bit confused. What is the difference between Contributory Negligence and Proximate Cause?
Antonio: (Refer to your PowerPoint ^^)
Char: Let's now discuss about the Effects of Contributory Negligence, could you tell us something about this sir?
Antonio: (Discuss the case of Lambert v. Heirs of Castillon and Genobiagon v. CA and the doctrines of the case)
Char: Sir we have a question from one of our viewers, let's watch this...
PLAY VTR. Q: What if in a road accident, a jaywalker was bumped by a fast speeding car which resulted to the
death of the jaywalker, who is at fault? Was there a contributory negligence on the part of the jaywalker?
Antonio: (Discuss the case of Genobiagon v. CA)
Char: Let's now go to Fortuitous Event.
----- x x x -----
Char: Alright! We shall now proceed in discussing the Causes of Negligence, I know our retired Chief Justice has
been waiting for this, he he he. So Sir, tell us about the Different Categories of Causes of Negligence.
Alvin: (Bahala ka na din kung paano mo sila explain. Cite the doctrines in the cases)
Char: With regards to the proximate cause, what are the tests to determine them?
Alvin: (Discuss the tests and the cases therein, especially Picart v. Smith)
Last Clear Chance- 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.
Char: On the test of Last Clear Chance, does it only applies to car accidents?
Alvin: (Bahala ka sumagot xD) (Relate the case of Consolidated Bank v. CA)
Char: Alright! Wow, this has been a very educating episode for us.
And to end this episode we will leave a quote by Earl Warren,
"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive."
Thank you very much and Good day!