SAINT MARY’S UNIVERSITY Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Torts and Damages March 8, 2022 QUIZ (FIRST HALF) 1. a. Discuss the concept of “Duty to the Rescuer” and “Duty to Rescue.” (10%) The defendants are liable for the injuries since in this case if a person is hurt to rescue another and was injured through negligence, he may recover damages from the person who caused the original injury. The rescued person is not liable. It is to be understood that that failure to help a victim from an accident might be viewed as morally reprehensible. However, the person who abstain from helping the victim is not legally responsible. He is bound to act with prudence not with charity. b. What is the concept of Torpedo or Turntable Doctrine? (10%) This is the class of cases where it considers the fact that children are expected to act childishly and with impulsive behavior. Here, the owner of the property is held liable to the children who trespassed in the subject area and was injured. The owner is bound to know that children may be attracted and be injured thereby even in the absence of negligence except in maintaining the property in such condition that children may trespass thereon to their harm. 2. The Victory Bus Liner was issued a license to carry passengers from Metro Manila en route to Aparri, Cagayan for a fee by the Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board (‘LTFRB’). One of the stations of Victory Bus Liner is located at Cubao, Quezon City. At about 9 p.m. and considering that the bus was full of passengers, it proceeded to its route going to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Along the way, the driver opened the bus door and let a vendor of ‘Bulacan sweets’ come in. Once inside, the vendor was able to sell all his product. After that, the bus driver saw a hump, and therefore he instantaneously stopped the bus, which jerked the vendor forward and hit his head on the railings. Due to this, the vendor died instantaneously. The surviving spouse of the vendor filed a case for Torts and Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. Through counsel, the Victory Bus Liner stated that they are not liable considering that the vendor is not a passenger as defined by law and jurisprudence. Will the case prosper? Defend your answer? (20%) Yes, the case will prosper. The common carrier will still be liable to non-passengers. Its liability to persons other than passengers who come upon the premises of such companies may in general be said to be determined according to the general rules of negligence relating to the duties of owners to trespassers, licensees or invitees. Such is considered as licensee , and so the common carrier is still liable when they are injured through the negligence of the carrier’s employees. Here the driver was negligent to see the humps that caused the vehicle to disorganized and injured the victim. 3. The Bambang Air Ways is owned by Atty. Shatdu Locuain, located at Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, recently opened for domestic flights from and into Manila. On June 7, 2016, a man stood on one of the steel railings of the airport intended for arriving passengers. Said man was holding a paper and written on it “Piolo Pascual.” Together with said man are the other visitors of the airport who also anticipate the arrival of their loved ones. Feeling tired, the man went on the left-wing of the steel railings to take a breather. While walking in the said direction, the man tripped on the floor headfirst. Due to this, the said man suffered a broken nose. This man filed a case for Damages against the Bambang Air Ways. He alleged that the airport management should have covered the open pit and not let it loose without any warning whatsoever. The airport management contented that the said man is not a passenger nor a visitor of the airport as in fact they discovered that he is merely making fun on the said day as he was not waiting for any arrival. He was just there pretending to be waiting for a person named Piolo Pascual when in truth, he knew that no such person was arriving. Will the case prosper? (20%) 4. Spouses Leonardo and Erica Vergara brought their three (3) children at AM PM Lodge, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. The public can take a bath in the swimming pool so long as they will pay for the ticket. Considering that Spouses Vergara are poor, they just stayed outside the high walls of the lodge and imagined that they were customers. They brought some food and snacks with them while watching the customers inside from a distance. Sps. Vergara got tired, and they took a nap. After that, the three children, all minors, manage to enter the entrance gate without the security guard noticing them. Once inside, the three minor children dive into the pool. Considering that it was their first time to swim, the children drowned and died eventually. Sps. Vergara filed a cause of action before the courts of law for damages. The proprietor of AM PM Lodge contended that the three children are not customers and are not entitled to damages. They argued they were intruders of the lodge. a. Will the case prosper? Defend your answer. (7% Not liable when it involves duplication of the nature of work since it can be dangerous to children. b. Does your answer make any difference if the child is 17 years of age and acted with discernment? (7%) c. Does your answer make any difference if the body of water is not a swimming pool but a natural spring? (6%) 5. Arnulfo Dueta has suffered from high uric acid and sugar for years. Due to this, he always takes maintenance drugs he buys through prescription. On March 8, 2014, Mr. Dueta went to the Mercury Drug of Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, after office hours. He bought ten specialized Allopurinol, a maintenance drug for controlling uric acid, using his prescription. The saleslady asked how many milligrams he needed and that Mr. Dueta stated about more than 100 mg. Once he arrived at his house, he drank one of the medicines as he was not feeling well. Upon drinking, he collapsed on the floor and was delivered to the hospital. After one week in the hospital of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, he went home and filed a cause of action for Damages against the Mercury Drug. After investigation, it turned out that the drug store gave him 150 mg of Specialized Allupurinol instead of only 100 mg. The drug store stated that Mr. Dueta should have read his prescription correctly and used the maxim “caveat emptor” or buyers beware. If you are the judge, how will you resolve the issue? (20%) -o0o-