Uploaded by Kristine Mae Rivera

Kristine mae Rivera Torts 2022-First-Half

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Torts and Damages
March 8, 2022
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?
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?
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?