Chapter 6. Defenses in Negligence Cases
I.
Plaintiff’s Conduct
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of
the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded.
1. Plaintiff’s own negligence as the proximate cause
 Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred.
 The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the only purpose
of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The
private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of
knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but
the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. The
omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of the warning signs on the site of the excavation,
constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented
the injury. (PLDT vs CA, GR No. 57079)
2. Contributory Negligence
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he
may recover.
a. Comparative Negligence Rule
 Comparative negligence rules include any rule under which the relative degree of negligence
of the parties is considered in determining whether, and to what degree, either should be
responsible for his negligence.
 The doctrine of comparative negligence does not completely bar recovery but merely mitigates
the same.
b. Contributory Negligence Mitigates Liability
 Contributory negligence is defined as conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as
a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required
to conform for his own protection.
c. Extent of Mitigation
 The court is free to determine the extent of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability depending
on the circumstances.
d. Test of Negligence
 There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and
foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.
 Jose Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co.
 Phoenix Construction Inc. and Carbonel vs Dionisio
2.01.
Imputed Contributory Negligence
 Negligence is imputed if the actor is different from the person who is being made
liable.
 As applied to contributory negligence, the defendant will be subject to mitigated
liability even if the plaintiff was not himself personally negligent but because the
negligence of another is imputed to the plaintiff.
a. Imputed Negligence to Plaintiff as Proximate Cause
 In Ramos vs COL Realty Corp., if the master is injured by the negligence
of a third person and by the concurring negligence of his own servant or
agent, the latter’s negligence is imputed to his superior and will defeat
the superior’s claim against the third person if the negligence is the
proximate cause.
3.
Violation of Statute by the Victim or His Agent
 Violation of statute and rules is treated generally as negligence per se except when the law or rules
specifically provide for a different rule.
a. Neither Contributory Negligence nor Proximate Cause
 In Anonuevo vs CA, the Court ruled that the violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold
that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury, unless the very injury that happened
was precisely what was intended to be prevented by the statute. There must be proof of
causation.
 The violation of a traffic statute must be shown as the proximate cause of the injury, or that
it substantially contributed thereto.
4. Assumption of Risk
4.01.
Requisites of Assumption of Risk
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present.
2. He must further understand its nature.
3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
 In relation to the last requisite, the plaintiff is excused if an emergency
is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he
seeks to rescue his endangered property.
 Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs CA (1989)
4.02.
Kinds
a. Express Waiver of the Right to Recover
 Under the express consent perspective, there is assumption of risk if the
plaintiff, in advance, has expressly waived his right to recover damages
for the negligent act of the defendant.
 A waiver of the right to recover before the negligent act cannot be
stipulated in the contract. If the waiver was made after the cause of action
accrued, the waiver is valid and may be construed as condonation of the
obligation.
 A stipulation that the responsibility to take care of the thing involved
rests with one of the parties only is valid.
1. Effect of Free and Harmless Clause
Parties to a contract usually stipulate that one party holds the other
free and harmless from any claim of third persons. However, injured
third persons are not bound by the contractual stipulation and can
still sue both contractual parties when both of them are negligent.
2. Future Fraud
Waiver of the right to recover damages that will arise through future
fraud is void under Article 1171.
b.
Art. 2235 provides that a stipulation whereby exemplary damages
are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
Implied Assumption
1. Dangerous Conditions
A person who, knowing that he is exposed to a dangerous condition,
voluntarily assumes the risk of such dangerous condition, may not recover
from the defendant who maintained such dangerous conditions.
 Transporto vs Mijares
 Murphy vs Steeplechase Amusement Co.
2.
3.
4.
Contractual Relations
There may be implied assumption of risk if the plaintiff entered into a relation
with the defendant.
 In Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company, the employee
cannot be said to have assumed a risk which is not incident to his
employment.
 In Afialda vs Hisole, being injured by the animal was one of the
risks of the occupation which the caretaker had voluntarily assumed
and for which he must take the consequences.
 In the contract of common carriage, there is assumption of the
ordinary risk involved in transportation of goods and passengers.
Dangerous Activities
Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous activities assume the risks
which are usually present in such activities.
Defendant’s Negligence
There is implied admission when the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by
the defendant’s negligence, yet he voluntarily decided to proceed to
encounter it.