Facts:
The case involves a vehicular accident involving the petitioner and one Joel Primero, wherein the petitioner suffered injuries. The respondent is the employer of Primero. The accident happened on March 30, 2000. On October 16, 2000. the petitioner demanded from the respondent compensation for her injuries, but the respondent refused to pay. The petitioner sued the respondent for damages, alleging that she lost the mobility of her arm as a result of the accident. The respondent maintained that the petitioner had no cause of action against her as no reasonable relation existed between the vehicular accident and her injuries. She pointed out that the illness became manifest one month and one week from the date of the accident.
Issue:
WoN petitioner can claim compensation for her injuries against the respondent?
Ruling:
(Article 1162; 2176; 2180)
No, the petitioner cannot claim compensation for her injuries against the respondent.
The source of obligation in a quasi-delict is the breach or omission of mutual duties that civilized society imposes upon its members, or which arise from non-contractual relations of certain members of society to others. The petitioner must first establish by a preponderance of evidence the three elements of quasi-delict before we determined the respondents' liability as Joel's employer. She should show the chain of causation between Joel's reckless driving and her whiplash injury. The rationale for these graduated levels of analysis is that it is essentially the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juries in extra-contractual obligations.
No comments:
Post a Comment