Civil Law and Land Titles and Deeds › Torts and Quasi-delicts › Defenses and Other Grounds Affecting Liability

2. Plaintiff’s Negligence as Immediate and Proximate Cause

Plaintiff’s Negligence as Immediate and Proximate Cause

Concept

A plaintiff’s own negligence may defeat a claim for damages when it is the proximate cause of the injury and the defendant committed no independent negligence. The inquiry is not merely whether the plaintiff acted carelessly, but whose negligence caused the injury for which compensation is sought. (Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc., G.R. No. 206184, 6 December 2017)1

Governing provisions

Article 2176 obliges a person to pay for damage caused to another by an act or omission involving fault or negligence. When there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, that fault or negligence is called a quasi-delict. Article 20 likewise requires a person who willfully or negligently causes damage contrary to law to indemnify the injured party. (Art. 2176, Civil Code)2 (Art. 20, Civil Code)3

Requisites / Rules

  • Identify the conduct alleged to be negligent. Ask whether a prudent person in the actor’s position could reasonably foresee the harm and should have refrained from the conduct or taken precautions. (Sanggacala v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 209538, 7 July 2021)4
  • Determine proximate cause. It is the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by a new cause, produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred. (Dela Cruz v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 219649, 26 July 2017)5
  • Establish the plaintiff’s alleged negligence by evidence. The party alleging a fact bears the burden of proving it; an assertion that the injured person was negligent does not suffice. (Prieto v. Cajimat, G.R. No. 214898, 8 June 2020)6
  • If the victim’s own negligence was the proximate cause, third parties are not liable in the absence of independent negligence on their part. (Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc.)1

Distinctions

A plaintiff’s negligent act and the proximate cause of an injury are not necessarily the same thing. Causation must be assessed in the full sequence of events. In one case, the Court attributed damage to the utility company’s negligent installation of posts and wires, which led to contact, insulation failure, and fire. In another, it held an event organizer’s negligence to be the proximate cause despite a jeepney driver’s intervening negligence. (Visayan Electric Company, Inc. v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 209910, 29 November 2017)7 (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, 15 March 2017)8

The victim’s own proximate negligence must also be distinguished from a bare allegation of such negligence. In Prieto, the parties asserting that the deceased was negligent failed to prove it by preponderance of evidence, and liability was upheld. (Prieto v. Cajimat)6

Key doctrines

In Spouses Latonio, the Court found from the injured person’s own testimony that her carelessness was the proximate cause of her injury. Because the parties sued were not independently negligent, they were not held liable. Thus, proof of injury alone does not establish a claim against a particular defendant; the alleged legal wrong and its causal connection to the damage remain material. (Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc.)1

Exceptions

The rule concerning the victim’s own proximate negligence does not absolve a defendant whose independent negligence caused the injury. Nor should an intervening negligent act automatically be treated as ending the inquiry: the Court has held an earlier negligent act to be the proximate cause despite another person’s intervening negligence. (Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc.)1 (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc.)8

Bar tip

State the negligent acts of both sides, identify the proximate cause from the sequence of events, then check whether the defendant’s independent negligence was proved. Do not treat an unproved allegation of the plaintiff’s carelessness as a complete defense. (Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc.)1 (Prieto v. Cajimat)6

Authorities

  • Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, 15 March 2017
  • Art. 20, Civil Code
  • Art. 2176, Civil Code
  • Cruz v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 219649, 26 July 2017
  • Rondal v. Cajimat, G.R. No. 214898, 8 June 2020
  • Sanggacala v. Corporation, G.R. No. 209538, 7 July 2021
  • Spouses Latonio v. Mcgeorge Food Industries Inc., G.R. No. 206184, 6 December 2017
  • Visayan Electric Company, Inc. v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 209910, 29 November 2017