F. Defenses and Other Grounds Affecting Liability

Principal Defenses in Actions Based on Negligence

• Emergency Rule;
• Assumption of Risk and Volenti Non Fit Injuria;
• Contributory Negligence;
• Mutual Negligence;
• Fortuitous Event or Force Majeure;
• Last Clear Chance;
• Due Diligence;
• Damnum Absque Injuria; and
• Prescription.

Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine that may permit an inference of negligence in favor of the claimant; it is not a defense.

EMERGENCY RULE

An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. (Gan v. CA, G.R. No. L-44264, 19 Sept. 1988; Marikina Auto Line Transport Corp. v. People, G.R. No. 152040, 31 Mar. 2006)

NOTE: Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial beings.

Pursuant to vicarious liability, a corporation may be held directly and primarily liable for damage caused by its employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks or on the occasion of their functions. (NCC, Art. 2180)

In Mckee v. IAC, et. al, G.R. No. L-68102, 16 July 1992, the Court found the petitioner not guilty of negligence because any reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried to avoid running over the two boys by swerving the car away from where they were even if this would mean entering the opposite lane. Avoiding such immediate peril would be the natural course to take particularly where the vehicle in the opposite lane would be several meters away and could very well slow down, move to the side of the road and give way to the oncoming car.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

Emergency Rule

An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024, February 7, 1996)

NOTE: Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial beings.

Pursuant to vicarious liability, a corporation may be held directly and primarily liable for damages caused by its employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks or on the occasion of their functions. (NCC, Art. 2180)

A. As related to the party to be estopped (CIK)<br>

• Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or at least which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with those which the party subsequently attempts to assert;
• Intention or at least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted upon, or influence, the other party or other persons;
• Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts

Exemption or diminution of liability:

The hotelkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest (Art. 2003)

Effect: Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former (as set forth in Arts. 1998-2001) is suppressed or diminished shall be void.