16.

Defenses
e. Emergency Rule
Under the "emergency rule," an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may
be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. (Valenzuela vs. CA)
* applicable only to situations that are sudden and unexpected such as to
deprive actor of all opportunity for deliberation
* but action must still be judged by the standard of the ordinary prudent man
* absence of foreseeability

FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Gravity of the Harm to be avoided
Alternative courses of action - If the alternative presented to the actor is too costly,
the harm that
may result may still be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man
Social Value and Utility of the Action - The act which subjects an innocent person to
an unnecessary risk is a negligent act if the risk outweighs the advantage accruing to the
actor and even to the innocent person himself.
Person exposed to the risk - A higher degree of diligence is required if the person
involved is a child.


f. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete defense by the defendant in a
quasi-delictual action.
The doctrine assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm from
the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover from such harm. (57 Am. Jur.
2d 663.)
The maxim volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done")
states that when a person voluntarily assents to a known danger, he must abide by
the consequences.

Elements:
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. He must further understand its nature; and that
3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.

KINDS:
1. Express waiver of the right to recover -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.
NOTE: A person cannot contract away his right to recover damages resulting from
negligence. Such waiver is contrary to public policy and cannot be allowed. However,
the waiver contemplated by this prohibition is the waiver of the right to recover before
the negligent act was committed.
If waiver was made after the cause of action accrued, the waiver is valid and
may be construed as a condonation of the obligation.

2. Implied Assumptions
a. 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.
Example: A person who maintained his house near a railroad track
assumes the usual dangers attendant to the opera-tion of a locomotive.
(Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad Co., GR No. 15688, Nov. 19, 1921).
b. Contractual Relations - There may be implied assumption of risk if the plaintiff
entered into a contractual relation with the defendant. By entering into a
relationship freely and voluntarily where the negligence of the defendant is
obvious, the plaintiff may be found to accept and consent to it.
EXAMPLES:
The employees assume the ordinary risks inherent in the industry in
which he is employed.
As to abnormal risks, there must be cogent and convincing evidence of
consent.
When a passenger boards a common carrier, he takes the risks
incidental to the mode of travel he has taken.
c. Dangerous Activities - Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous
activities assume the risks which are usually present in such activities.
EXAMPLE: A professional athlete is deemed to assume the risks of injury
to their trade.
d. Defendants negligence - When the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the
defendants negligence, yet he voluntarily decided to proceed to encounter it,
there is an implied admission.
EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff has been supplied with a product which he
knows to be unsafe, he is deemed to have assumed the risk of using
such unsafe product.

g. Due Diligence
Diligence is required by law/contract/ depends on circumstances of
persons, places, things.
For persons held vicariously liable, the proper defense is the exercise of
diligence of a good father of the family (last par., Art. 2180, NCC and Art. 219,
Family Code of the Philippines). In the case of employer held vicariously liable,
the proper defense is the exercise of all the diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of his employees (Franco et al. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 71137, October 5, 1989). But note that the
defense of exercise of due care in their selection and supervision . . . is not
applicable to obligations arising ex contractu, but only to extra-contractual
obligations or to use the technical form of expression, [the defense] relates
only to culpa aquiliana and not to culpa contractual (Cangco vs. Manila Railroad
Co., supra).


h. Fortuitous Event
No person shall be responsible for those events which cannot be foreseen, or which
through foreseen were inevitable (Art.1174)
REQUISITES:
a. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor
to comply with his obligation, must be independent of the human will;
b. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes caso fortuito or if it can be
foreseen it must be impossible to avoid
c. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
d. The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting
to the creditor.
GENERAL RULE: Fortuitous Event is a complete defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous event.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial defense and the courts may mitigate the damages if
the loss would have resulted in any event [Art. 2215(4) NCC]
NOTE: A person may still be liable for a fortuitous event if such person made an
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

i. Damnun absque injuria - (Latin for "loss without injury")
a principle that involves damage without injury, therefore no liability is incurred; there
is no legal injury
Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a person's rights, even if it causes loss
to another, does not automatically result in an actionable injury. The law does not
prescribe a remedy for the loss. This principle does not, however, apply when there
is an abuse of a person's right, or when the exercise of this right is suspended or
extinguished pursuant to a court order. Indeed, in the availment of one's rights, one
must act with justice, give their due, and observe honesty and good faith. (Amonoy
vs. Guiterrez, G.R. 140420, February 15, 2001)

j. Good Father of a Family
The phrase may be equated with ordinary care or that diligence which an average or a
reasonably prudent person exercises over his own affairs. (De Leon & De Leon, Jr.,
Comments and Cases on Obligations and Contracts, 2003 Ed., p. 30.) This standard of
care is also referred to as that a man of ordinary prudence, or a man using ordinary
care and skill.