Torts and Damages De Guia v Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co.

- doctor who is in a cable car, standing in the rear platform was thrown away & got bruises when the train was derailed off track and crashed a post. Witnesses claim that it was on a higher speed than normal but MER claims fortuitous event claiming the presence of big stone which was the cause of derailment of train. The relation between the parties was, therefore, of a contractual nature, and the duty of the carrier is to be determined with reference to the principles of contract law, that is, the company was bound to convey and deliver the plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the degree of care which, under the circumstances, is required by law and custom applicable to the case. Although in case like this the defendant must answer for the consequences of the negligence of its employee, the court has the power to moderate liability according to the circumstances of the case (art. 1103, Civ. Code): Furthermore, we think it obvious that an employer who has in fact displayed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is entitled to be considered a debtor in good faith, within the meaning of article 1107 of the same Code. Construing these two provisions together, applying them to the facts of this case, it results that the defendant's liability is limited to such damages as might, at the time of the accident, have been reasonably foreseen as a probable consequence of the physical injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff and which were in fact a necessary result of those injuries.
Carlos v Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co during typhoon, telephone wires were cut because an old tree was uprooted causing the wire to come in contact with trolley wires of the defendant. A 3-year old passing got electrocuted, which policeman Carlos attempted to save her but he also died. His daughter and wife sued MER for damages. While it is true that when an electric railway company is given authority to use the public streets for its lines, the law implies a duty of using a very high degree of care in the construction, operation, and maintenance of its appliances, requiring it to employ every reasonable precaution known to those possessed of the skill and knowledge requisite to the safe conduct and control of such a dangerous agency for providing against such dangers incident to its use, and holds it accountable for the injury of any person due to the neglect of that duty. The duty and liability of electric companies is not limited to keeping their own wires out of the streets, but extends to the prevention of the escape of the dangerous force in their service through any wires brought in contact

with their own and of its transmission thereby to anyone using the streets. Yet such companies, in erecting and maintaining their wires, are bound only to anticipate such combination of circumstances and accidents and injuries therefrom, as they may reasonably forecast as likely to happen, taking into account their own experience and the practice of others in similar conditions, together with what is inherently probable in the condition of the wires as they relate to the conduct of their business. Picart v Smith riding his horse on Carlatan Bridge at La Union. Yamada v Manial Railroad Co Yamada with 3 others were injured when driver of Barach Garage crossed the tracks without stopping & collided with train. They suffered injuries. Barachs arguments were it was a custom not to look and listen, the view was obstructed by trees but was rebutted and it was a populated place, flagman must be assigned there. Bell was rung. 12-15 meters, unobstructed view. Where, on approaching a crossing, the view of the tracks in both directions is unobstructed for such a distance as to render it perfectly safe to pass over without the use of any other faculty than sight, such use alone is sufficient and it is not necessary to stop or even to slacken speed or listen. On the other hand, where the view of the tracks is obstructed, them it is driver's duty to slacken speed, to reduce the noise, if any, of the vehicle, to look and to listen, if necessary, or do any other act necessary to determine that a train is not in dangerous proximity to the crossing. Practice which is dangerous to human life cannot ripen into a custom which will protect anyone who follows it. To go upon a railroad crossing without making any effort to ascertain the approach of a train is so hazardous an act and one so dangerous to life, that no one may be permitted to excuse himself who does it, provided injury result. One who performs an act so inherently dangerous cannot, when an accident occurs, take refuge behind the plea that others have performed the same act safely. Person who hires a public automobile and gives the driver direction as to the place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but exercise no other control over the conduct of the driver, is not responsible for acts of negligence of the latter or prevented from recovering for injuries suffered from a collision between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence either of the locomotive engineer or the automobile driver. Ordinarily where one rides in public vehicle with the driver thereof and is injured by the negligence of a third person, to which negligence that of the

1 thil lozada

Torts and Damages driver contributes his contributory negligence is not imputable to the passenger unless said passenger has or is in the position to have and exercise some control over the driver with reference to the matter wherein he was negligent. Whether the person injured exercises any control over the conduct of the driver further than to indicate the place to which he wishes to drive is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court on all of the evidence in the case.
Lilius v Manila Railroad Co. sight-seeing trip with wife & daughter. In dayap, saw a truck and people stopped. He lessen speed and blew his horn for them to get out of the way. Only heard 2 short whistle. They collided with the train and the center of the car. The way was obstructed with trees and houses. No semaphore and the flagman and switchman was late. In order that a victim of an accident may recover indemnity for damages from the person liable therefor, it is not enough that the latter has been guilty of negligence, but it is also necessary that the said victim has not, through his own negligence, contributed to the accident, inasmuch as nobody is a guarantor of his neighbor's personal safety and property, but everybody should look after them, employing the care and diligence that a good father of a family should apply to his own person, to the members of his family and to his property, in order to avoid any damage. Defendant the Manila Railroad Company alone is liable for the accident by reason of its own negligence and that of its employees, for not having employed the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of the said employees in the discharge of their duties. Wright v Manila Electric RR & Light Co wright lives near the tracks. One night, he drove home in a calesa, intoxicated. Horse stumbled and fell which caused him injuries. Not only the rails but part of the ties was above ground. Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. It is the general rule that it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is required than by a sober one. If one's conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. US v Knight truck driver ran over 10-12 years old. On that night, no other cars on the road except a roadroller

One person is not compelled to travel behind another on the highway, and one has not the exclusive right to precede another. The traveler may pass to the front when he can do so in safety. The employment of an automobile on the highway as a means of transportation is a lawful use of the road, and if it results in an injury to one traveling by another mode the driver of the automobile cannot be held liable for injury, unless it is made to appear that he used the machine at a time, or in manner, or under circumstances inconsistent with a proper regard for the rights of others. While those who undertake to drive high-power motor vehicles over the public highways may be, and should be required to exercise great care and skill in the management and control of their machines so as to avoid inflicting injury upon others, still, they should not be required to exercise such extraordinary precautions as would be necessary to avoid all possibility that others may be injured in person or property as a result of their own negligence or of unforseen contingencies which a prudent and skillful driver could not be expected to anticipate and provide against. US v Tanedo chicken hunting. When he fired one shot, he also killed a teenage boy. He who, while performing a legal act with due care, causes some injury by mere accident without liability or intention of causing it. If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. US v Tayongtong painting telephone poles and was ran over by a large passenger automobile Arriving at a point in the highway just in front of the deceased, the latter, to avoid the cloud of dust which was drifting to his side of the road, started to cross the road to the other side. He miscalculated the time and distance and as a result was struck by the automobile and run over. His action in starting across the road was so sudden and unexpected and, when he reached the road, he was so close to the automobile, that it was impossible to stop the machine in time to save him. The body was picked up within the traveled portion of the highway. Where death is due to the negligence of the decedent himself and not to the negligence of the driver of the automobile, the latter cannot be held for homicide. In this case the death of the deceased was due entirely to his own

2 thil lozada

Torts and Damages negligence. There is not sufficient reliable proof in the record to establish negligence on the part of the accused. There being no negligence, he is not responsible, no matter what the result of the accident may have been.
Light Rail Transit Authority v Navidad fist fight in a railway station between a drunk passenger and security guard. Navidad, the passenger fell on the tracks and died when he was run over by the moving train. A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence in ensuring the safety of passengers. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers: (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure. Once such fault is established, the employer can then be made liable on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection and supervision of its employees. The liability is primary and can only be negated by showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, a factual matter that has not been shown. When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

Barcelo v Manila Electric Railroad Co Barcelo was the mother superior of Augustinian asked defendant to install light in the church, on that night, the church was burned. The burden of proof rests on one who seeks to recover damages on the ground of the alleged negligence of another, and before judgment for damages can be entered in such cases the fact of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. Ong v Metropolitan Water District boy drowned in pool, lifeguard attempted to save him but futile attempt. The present action is governed by Article 2176 in relation to Article 2080 of the new Civil Code. The first article provides that "whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done." Such fault or negligence is called quasi-delict. Under the second article, this obligation is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The owners of resorts to which people generally are expressly or by implication invited are legally bound to exercise ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of making them reasonably safe for visitors" The doctrine of last clear chance simply means that the negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence. The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered; at least in cases in which any previous negligence of the party charged cannot be said to have contributed to the injury. Penullar v PNB Moya has an OCT on land but Miguel filed case alleging ownership on such. The case became final and a Torrens title was issued with Miguel, he mortgaged to PNB. PNB foreclosed . Penullar, heir of Moya, sued to annul mortgage and title. He claims title was invalid but mortgage was valid. Where Torrens Titles were issued as a result of regular land registration proceedings and were later given as security to a bank loan, the subsequent declaration of said torrens titles as null and void, does not authorize the cancellation of the mortgaged rights of the bank which acted in good faith.

3 thil lozada

Torts and Damages He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause damages shall, as between two innocent parties.
Canlas v CA , Asian Savings Bank, Contreras and Manosca Canlas agreed to have a business venture with Manosca. Canlas issued a SPA to mortgage his 2 lots in BF. Canlas delivered the TCTs to Manosca. MAnosca fraudulently used TCT to mortgage 100k from Atty. Magno, with impostor Canlas spouse. He also was able to get a 500,000 loan from ASN again with the impostor spouse. Due to failure to pay, foreclosed lot. Canlas to annul the deed of real estate mortgage. The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family; in keeping with their responsibility to exercise the necessary care and prudence in dealing even on a registered or titled property. The business of a bank is affected with public interest, holding in trust the money of the depositors, which bank deposits the bank should guard against loss due to negligence or bad faith, by reason of which the bank would be denied the protective mantle of the land registration law, accorded only to purchasers or mortgagees for value and in good faith. The bank did not observe that diligence in ascertaining or verifying the real identity of the couple, not vent a single ID was exhibited. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, the respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Gan v CA drining a Toyota sedan. She was trying to avoid the car overtaking her, swerving, she bumped with an old man who was about to cross the street. He died. The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty oil the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.

The EMERGENCY RULE. "Under that rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence." Petitioner certainly could not be expected to act with all the coolness of a person under normal conditions. The danger confronting petitioner was real and imminent, threatening her very existence. very powerful instinct of self-preservation. Mc Kee v IAC and Tayag and Manalo head-on collision with cargo truck loaded with 200 cavans of rice and Ford Escort. 2 boys suddenly darted from right side of the road. Koh blew horn and swerved to the left at teh lane of the truck. EMERGENCY RULE. PROXIMATE CAUSE. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE. Art 2185, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligenct if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. The truck driver is negligence. He was running at 48 kph along the bridge while the maximum speed allowed by law is only 30kph. The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. Phoenix Construction v IAC driver of dump truck parked slightly on the part of the road. Volkswagen with no headlights collided with dump truck. Art 2180 is only contributory negligence. The improper parking of truck created an unreasonable risk for anyone driving on that street for which the truck driver should be held responsible as the negligence of a car driver bumping that truck was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the truck driver. Doctrine of last clear chance in common law cannot be applied as a general rule in negligence cases in our civil law system. Of the fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community.

4 thil lozada

Torts and Damages Cases 55-73 Rakes v Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co one of 8 laborers in the employment of defendant. They were transporting rails off a boat. Plaintiff not walking in front but alongside that the car met an accident. The rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg and amputated. Certain part of track was dislodged caused by a recent typhoon. Principle of proportional damages negligence of injured person contributing to his injury but not being one of the determining causes of the principal accident, does not operate as a bar to recovery, but only in reduction of his damages. Each party is chargeable with damages in proportion to his fault. Disobedience of plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as its primary cause. 1. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover. 2. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
Teh v Philippine Aerial Taxi passenger of hydroplane, when it landed but the propeller is still in motion, went down and his arms was caught and amputated. Tehs negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident. Bernardo v Legaspi collision of automobiles both negligent Where plaintiff in the negligence action, y his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, i.e., to accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot recover. Phil Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC rented a jeepney but right rear wheel was detached, bumped with bus. Is the insurer of the jeepney liable or Phil Rabbit Bus? DOCTRINE of LAST CLEAR CHANCE applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of 2 colliding vehicles, not where the passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce contractual obligations. Carrier, presumed at fault or negligent, the moment a passenger dies or is injured. Accident caused either by defects in the automobile or negligence of driver, not a caso fortuito. Driver, not jointly and severally liable with carrier in case of breach of contract of carriage.

Bustamante v CA collision between gravel and sand truck & passenger bus. Several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died. DOCTRINE of LAST CLEAR CHANCE 1. cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of latters peril 2. cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. 3. As to 3rd persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury. Cannot be used against heirs of passengers by owners and drivers. Taylor v Manila Electric Co Taylor with friends visited defendantpremises to make them a cylinder for a miniature engine. Not there, so wander and found 20-30 brass fulminating caps explosion of blasting charges of dynamite. It blasted. It company negligent? The company may be negligent but such negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. The negligence of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff not attributable to the negligence of the defendant. Plaintiffs action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting a match to the contents was the proximate cause of the explosion. GR: an adult that entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another he must himself have been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. Boy is already 15 years old. Del Prado v Manila Electric Co boarded a moving street car placing one foot motorman accelerated & DP lost balance and fell. His legs crashed and amputated Nevertheless, although the motorman of this car was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on, it was his duty to do act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff's peril while he was attempting to board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was, in our opinion, a breach of this duty. The duty that the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.

5 thil lozada

Torts and Damages 1. Where liability arises from a mere tort (culpa aquiliana), not involving a breach of positive obligation, an employer, or master, may exculpate himself, under the last paragraph of article 1903 of the Civil Code, by providing that he had exercised due degligence to prevent the damage; 2. whereas this defense is not available if the liability of the master arises from a breach of contrauctual duty (culpa contractual). It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting to board the moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of the injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the power prematurely. A person boarding a moving car must be taken to assume the risk of injury from boarding the car under the conditions open to his view, but he cannot fairly be held to assume the risk that the motorman, having the situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the speed of the car before he is planted safely on the platform. Only mitigate damages
Astudillo v Manila Electric Co young boy electrocuted reached an electric light pole in a public place in intramuros. Liability of electric light companies for damages for personal injuries is governed by the rules of negligence. Such companies are, however, not insurers of the safety of the public. But considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care required of electric companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to every place where persons have a right to be. The negligence came from the act of the Manila Electric Company in so placing its pole and wires as to be within proximity to a place frequented by many people, with the possibility ever present of one of them losing his life by coming in contact with a highly charged and defectively insulated wire. Violation of franchise, an ordinance, or a statute might constitute negligence. But the converse is not necessarily true, and compliance with a franchise, an ordinance, or a statute is not conclusive proof that there was no negligence. The franchise, ordinance, or statute merely states the minimum conditions. The fulfillment of these conditions does not render unnecessary other precautions required by ordinary care.

Del Rosario v Manila Electric Co similar to Aurenina wire burning & smoking. Informed the Manila Electric company a 2nd grade child touched the wires. It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary, and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not, in our opinion, alter the case. But even supposing that contributory negligence could in some measure be properly imputed to the deceased, a proposition upon which the members of the court do not all agree, yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case, not having been the determining cause of the accident. Africa v Caltex fire broke out at Caltex, it started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank when fire spread and burned several neighboring houses. Failed to put a firewall Plaintiff had failed to show any specific act of negligence, but the appellate court overruled the defense under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. "where the thing which caused injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur if he having such control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation, that the injury arose from defendant's want of care." Gasoline is a highly combustible material, in the storage and sale of which extreme care must be taken. On the other hand, fire is not considered a fortuitous event, as it arises almost invariably from some act of man. We find it established by the record that the filling station and the tank truck were under the control of the defendant and operated by its agents or employees. The persons who knew or could have known how the fire started were appellees and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care. "The intention of an unforeseen and unexpected cause, is not sufficient to relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of negligence, if such negligence directly and proximately cooperates with the independent cause in the resulting injury."

6 thil lozada

Torts and Damages Republic v Luzon Stevedoring collided with one of the posts of Nagtahan Bridge. Luzon claims obstruction of navigation Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object and uncontrovertedly provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft, including barges like of appellant's, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge, exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such a thing does not happen if proper care is used. In Anglo American Jurisprudence, the inference arises by what is known as the "res ipsa loquitur" rule. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. The very measures adopted by appellant prove that the possibility of danger was not only foreseeable, but actually foreseen, and was not caso fortuito.
FF Cruz & Co v CA furniture shop because of respondent failed to build a firewall. Fire from shop other houses also got burned. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, applicable in the case considering the presence of combustible materials in the furniture shop, and the failure of petitioner to build a firewall. Even without applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, petitionees failure to construct a firewall between its shop and the residence of private respondents, in accordance with city ordinances, supports a finding of negligence. Failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations is an act of negligence. Laguyan v IAC stationary cargo truck changing tire with EWD (burning lamp) another truck ran over the helper whose legs was subsequently amputated. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal judgment of the actor in a given situation. It is the law that determines what would be reckless or negligent. Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from mere fact that accident happened

provided character of accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstance involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.
Macalinao v Ong Both EE of Sebastian. Ong was driving and Macalianao is a passenger. It collided with front of jeepney, opposite direction. M was paralyzed and died. RES IPSA LOQUITUR is a latin phrase which literally means the thing or the transaction speaks for itself. It recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof allowing the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. The doctrine can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. Requisites: 1. accident is a kind w/c ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence 2. caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant/s 3. possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated 4. defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the injury was caused by his/her want of due care. (4th req from AmJur) No 2 motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of course unless someone is negligent. Whenever an EEs negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the ER failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of its employees. Due diligence in supervision requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of EEs and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. Ramos v CA Erlinda Ramos was experiencing pains in stone in gall bladder. Dr. Hosaka hired Dr Guiterrez as anaesthesiologist. Upon the scheduled operation, hosaka was late. Due to faulty intubation because of delay of oxygen in brain for 4-5mins. Comatose and hospitalized for 4 mons.

7 thil lozada

Torts and Damages Mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. It is simply a step in the process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or presumption of negligence. When the doctrine of res ipsa loqiutor is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. It is not available in a malpractice suit if the only showing is that the desired result of an operation or treatment was not accomplished.
Reyes v Sisters of Mercy Hosp Jorge recurring fever & chills. He was suspected of typhoid fever. Vomiting cyanosis and convulsion and died

Perle Cie d Seguros v Sarangaya III

NPC v CA

Ma-ao Sugar Central v CA

8 thil lozada