Este mensaje es simplemente incomparable )
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree doew stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it states no cause of action against the defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendant employed one What does cause of action mean in legal terms Estrada as a chauffeur, who operated defendant's car in Baguio on April 6, ; that on said date the said chauffeur, in driving the defendant's automobile No.
Manuel Aguas, which was then parked in front of Villa Carmelita in Baguio; that the plaintiff suffered physical injuries, his kneeball having been broken, and was confined in the hospital from April 6 to May 4, ; that before the accident he was earning a salary of P35 a month, but that as a result of the accident he became permanently disabled to perform his ordinary work. The plaintiff claims damages from the defendant in the sum of P10, upon the allegation that the defendant did not use and exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his said chauffeur.
The action is predicated upon articlein relation to articleof the Civil Code. These two articles read as follows:. The father, or in case of his death, or incapacity, herms mother, is liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them. Owners or directors of any establishment or business are, in the same way, liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties.
The State is subject wyat the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable. Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody.
The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons subject thereto prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. It is needless letal say that article is not applicable against the present what does cause of action mean in legal terms — even assuming as true the allegation that he failed to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his chauffeur — because such failure on his part was not the proximate cause of the damage complained causee.
He did not by such act or omission cause the damage in question. Said article would be applicable against the defendant's chauffeur alone, who himself was guilty of the negligent acts by which the damage was caused. Johnson vs. It is, however, insisted for the appellant that the appellee should be held responsible for the acts of his chauffeur under article But said article specifies the persons who are held responsible for the acts and omissions of another; and, as found by this Court in the cases of Johnson vs.
David, supraand Chapman vs. Underwood, 27 Phil. We are not persuaded that the interpretation of the codal provisions in question heretofore made by this Court in the cases above cited is wrong. Indeed, we feel that for the Court to so interpret said provisions as to include persons other than those therein specified as liable for the acts and omissions of another would be an invasion of the powers and prerogatives of the legislature.
The later of the two cases what is the causal variable cited Chapman vs. Underwood was decided by this Court on March 28,and for nearly three decades the legislature has not seen fit to change the law as interpreted by this Court. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but no finding what does cause of action mean in legal terms made as to costs because the appellant has been allowed to litigate as a pauper.
I am constrained to dissent because I believe the strict and narrow interpretation by the majority overthrows the principle of responsibility enunciated in article of the Civil Code. The majority opinion by exempting from liability those employers who are not engaged in any enterprise defeats the object which the legislator contemplated.
El padre, y, por muerte o incapacidad de este, la madre, actio responsables de los perjuicios causados por los hijos menores de edad que viven en su compania. Los tutores lo son de los perjuicios causados por los menores o incapacitados que estan bajo su autoridad y habitan en su compania. Lo son igualmente los dueñ os o directores de un establecimiento o empresa, respecto de los perjuicios causados por sus dependientes en el servicio what is considered a normal relationship los ramos en que los tuvieran empleados o con ocasion de sus funciones.
El Estado es responsable en este concepto cuando obra por mediacion de un agente especial; pero no cuando el daño hubiese sido causado por el funcionario a quien propiamente corresponda la gestion practicada, en cuyo caso sera aplicable lo dispuesto en el articulo anterior. Son, por ultimo, responsables los maestros o directores de artes y oficios respecto a love is better lyrics perjuicios causados por sus alumnos o aprendices, mientras permanezcan bajo su custodia.
La responsabilidad de que trata esta articulo cesara cuando las personas en el mencionadas prueben que emplearon toda la diligencia de un buen padre de familia what does cause of action mean in legal terms prevenir el daño. It will be seen that the first paragraph formulates a general principle, while the ensuing enumeration refers to those persons who are presumed to have acted negligently either in choice or supervision.
But this list does causw free from liability those persons who, though not included in the enumeration, are nevertheless in fact negligent and therefore come within the general principle. In the instant case, although the defendant is not one of those who are presumed to be negligent because he avtion not the owner or director of an establishment or enterprise, yet he is responsible on the general principle of the first paragraph legl article because the complaint alleges and defendant admits in his motion to dismiss the complaint that he defendant has wat negligent in the selection of Pedro Estrada qction his driver, and that he has negligently failed to prevent the damage.
Paragraphs 3 and 9 of the complaint allege:. That defendant did causd use and exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his said chauffeur, so that he has engaged and employed the services of the said operator who is careless, negligent, and imprudent in the performance of his service as such auto operator.
That defendant was and still is duty bound to pay damages to plaintiff, due to the carelessness des his chauffeur, as alleged above, which caused the physical disability of the plaintiff, and further, because of his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the said accident and the said damage, but defendant never has shown willingness to pay damage to said plaintiff. In other words, if the defendant had been the owner or director leyal any establishment or enterprise, it would not have been necessary to allege negligence on his part in choosing or overseeing his driver Estrada, because such negligence would what does cause of action mean in legal terms been presumed by Art.
Paragraph 2 of articleCivil Code, reads, "el padre, y, por muerte o incapacidad de este, la madre, son responsables de los perjuicios causados por los hijos menores que viven en su compania ". Supposing a case of negligence of a son, who was not living with his father, would be latter be responsible for the former's negligence? I believe that if the father and the son happened proportions 7th grade math be what does cause of action mean in legal terms at the time of the damage, and the father whhat negligent in not preventing the son's negligent act, the father would be liable.
My reasons is that although the father is not presumed to be negligent because his son is not tsrms with him, yet because the father proved to be negligent, he is, in my opinion, responsible. The above dies my theory that the enumeration of cases in article does not exclude other cases where the father, employer, etc. In addition to the foregoing hypothetical case, let me present this one: Referring to owners of establishments, suppose the employee negligently caused the damage while he was doing work in a branch other than that in which he was regularly employed, but the owner or employer was present and he was really and actually negligent in are tortilla chips bad for high cholesterol preventing the damage?
I believe the owner or employer is liable, although paragraph 4 of article requires that the employee be wat el servicio de los rames en que los tuvieran empleados o con ocasion de sus funciones. Another case may be supposed: There is a private charitable institution where beggars live and are taken care of. One of the employees through negligence, while burning certain odds and ends, caused a neighboring nipa house to catch fire and to be burned down. The owner or director of the institution had been previously warned of the danger but he negligently failed to prevent the employee's negligent act.
I believe the owner or director is liable, although the charitable institution is not one of the cases enumerated in article My reason is the same: The owner or director was really and actually negligent, though he is not presumed to be so. The same reasoning and conclusion may be had in the case of a private physician who cwuse fails to supervise his nurse whose negligence causes injury to a patient. Other cases could be supposed, but these four show that the enumeration of instances of presumed negligence in article does not exclude cases of actual and legao negligence.
In the present case it is alleged in the complaint and admitted in the motion to dismiss that defendant was negligent in not preventing the damage. Therefore, he is liable under article Let me now take up the two cases relied upon by the majority: Johnson vs. Davidand Chapman vs. Those two cases support my opinion that the defendant herein is liable. In the first case, Johnson vs. What does a positive plus a positive equal5 Phil.
This Court said:. The question presented by these facts is, Is the owner of a carriage driven by his cocheroliable for injuries grow-out of the negligence of said cocheroin the wha of such owner? No evidence was adduced during the trial of said cause to show that the defendant had been negligent in the employment of the cochero or that he what does cause of action mean in legal terms any knowledge that such cochero was incompetent or of the general negligent character of said cocheroif such existed.
In the other case, Chapman vs. Underwood27 Which events share a causal relationship. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to term the act or the continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor.
The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his own. In the case before what does cause of action mean in legal terms it does not appear from the record that from the time the automobile took the wrong side legl the road to the commission of the injury, sufficient time intervened to give the defendant an opportunity to correct the act of his driver.
Instead, it appears with fair clearness that the interval between the turning out to meet and what does cause of action mean in legal terms the street car and the happening of the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to charge defendant with the negligence of whaf driver. It is thus clear that this Court, in the two cases cited by the majority, did not hold the owner of the private vehicle responsible as he was not negligent either in employing or overseeing his driver.
These two cases impliedly hold that if the owner of a private vehicle is negligent in the choice of or vigilance over his driver, he the owner is liable. In the instant case, the defendant was negligent in these particulars, as alleged what are the three core marketing concepts explain and give example for each the complaint and admitted by defendant in his motion to dismiss.
The defendant is liable not only as employer of the driver Art. The defendant as the owner of the definition of causality in epidemiology is liable for damages, it being admitted in the motion to dismiss that the driver acted with negligence, carelessness and imprudence. It seems unreasonable and unjust to exempt the owner of a private automobile simply because he is not specifically listed in articlesignoring the fact that he plainly comes within the fundamental principle of those articles.
As Manresa says in commenting on the explosion of engines, causd smoke, etc. Respondiendo dicho articulo al principio general que informa la materia objeto de este capitulo, de que aquel que cause a otro un daño por what is a normal relationship timeline u omision, mediando culpa o negligencia, debe repararlo, enumera algunos casos que pueden dar lugar a dicha reparacion; pero debemos advertir que no son los unicos, y que la cita de los cuatro expresamente consignador en el referido articulo solo esta hecha demostrationis causa ; y en su virtud, en todos aquellos otros que puedan suscitarse en la practica, y en que exista la misma razon fundamental, habra lugar a la reparacionporque esta no depende de la expresion en la ley de las causas que la motivo, sino del principio esencial que antes hemos dicho, u por consiguiente, no puede dejar de haber lugar a ella porque los casos o sus causas no figurar en el Codigo.
Esta es la opinion general actoon los tratadistas, y lo contrario resultaria una injusticia irritante y un desconocimiento de los derechos de los perjudicados, falto de toda razon juridica. Emphasis supplied. It will be observed that applying the principles of analogy, Manresa includes the ownership of other things than those enumerated in these articles because the same what does cause of action mean in legal terms reason exists.
And we know that automobiles have killed and injured more people than have dogs or ruinous buildings, or exploding engines or any of the things specified in articles Coming what does cause of action mean in legal terms to a more detailed discussion of analogy as applied in this case, the principle of analogy should be distinguished from liberal interpretation. Under the principle of analogy, the complaint herein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Professor Clemente actjon Diego, an outstanding authority on the Spanish civil law and author of several books on the civil law of Spain, has written an essay on "La Analogia en Codigo Civil Causf in the Revista de Derecho PrivadoVol. I, pp. After citing certain provisions to show dhat analogy is authorized by the Spanish Civil Code, he says:. La misma prescripcion del articulo 6. La analogia forma parte de la dotacion de medios e instrumentos con que el poder judicial cuenta para el ejercicio what does cause of action mean in legal terms su mision.
La interpretacion y la analogia son recursos naturales e intrinsecos elementos de la funcion de juzgar que no han menester adtion declaracion expresa del legislador para ser licitamente empleados. Entre los autores antiguos era muy general confundirla con la interpretacion extensiva, sin pensar en que en esta al fin hay una voluntadreal del legislador, bien que expresada en formula estrecha e inadecuada, mientras que en la analogia falta completamente esa voluntad en cuanto que el legislador no previo el caso de que se trata.
Savigny y Thol, en las obras citadas en estos articulos, creen que interpretacion y analogia sondos casos distintas. Winscheid y Unger — a cuya opinion se inclina Regelsberger — entienden que es un procedimiento intermedio entre la interpretacion y la produccion del derecho, acercandose mas a aquella la analogia de ley y a esta la de derecho. Geny, que tan a fondo ha estudiado la cuestion, la coloca decididamente fuera de la interpretacion, constituyendo un procedimiento especial de investigacion cientifica del derecho y define phylogenetic classification system numerical taxonomy cytotaxonomy and chemotaxonomy alumbramiento de nuevas reglas juridicas, bien que tomando por hilo conductor el espiritu y disposiciones concretas de un derecho positivo.
En la analogia, se es de ley, sobre la base de una disposicion legal se busca una solucion para un caso no comprendido en ella, solucion q ue habria dado el legislador si en el caso hubiera pensado ; si es de derecho, montandose por encima de todo el derecho positivo y guiada por los principios informadores de este, busca una solucion que no discrepe, sino que este en armonia con el espiritu general del derecho. Manteniendose la analogia dentro de este y buscando tan solo las soluciones latentes en el sistema de un derecho, hay que convenir en que es mas bien un procedimiento de aplicacion del derecho que de creacion del mismo.
Pero no es pura aplicacion del derecho ni mera interpretacion, porque esta no fija ni halla normas nuevas como la analogia. En efecto, no es la norma misma que preve un caso la que se aplica a otro semejante, sino el principio juridicp fundamentao de aquella normay por tanto mas general y comprensivo del caso previsto y del no previsto; ese principio en esta determinacion representa una reglamas alta y extensa que la primitivamente formulada. No es, ya lo hemos visto, pura aplicacion mecanica de una norma existente a un caso en ella no comprendido, sino investigacion de un principio mas elevado y mas general y obtencion de una regla aplicable a los dos casos semejantes.
De todo lo dles hasta aqui se deduce la diferencia que corre entre la interpretacion y la analogia.