b. Foreseeability

Rules in graduation of damages in torts cases

Generally, the degree of care required is graduated according to the danger to a person or property attendant upon the activity which the actor pursues or the instrumentality he uses. The greater the danger the greater the degree of care required. (Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer Insurance, G.R. Nos. 180880-81, September 25, 2009).

However, foreseeability is not the same as probability. Even if there is lesser degree of probability that damage will result, the damage may still be considered foreseeable.

NOTE: The test, with respect to foreseeability, is not the balance of probabilities, but the existence, in the situation in hand, of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood is of such appreciable weight and moment to induce, or which reasonably should induce, action to avoid it on the part of a person or a reasonably prudent mind.

Test of negligence

The test is would a prudent man, in the position of the tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to take precaution against its mischievous results, and failure to do so constitutes negligence. (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918; Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017)

NOTE: The determination of negligence is a question of foresight on the part of the actor. (Phil. Hawk Corp. v. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010)