Definition of Terms:

1.

E. Natural and Probable Consequence test

- It must appear that this injury was not only the natural but also the probable consequences that are merely possible. The general test of human experience that is used to determine what is foreseeable is applied in determining what is natural and probable.

-The “natural and probable consequences” have been said to be those which human foresight can anticipate because, they happen so frequently, they may be expected to recur.

Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

Involves two things:

1. Causality -damage would not have resulted without the fault or negligence of the defendant

2. Adequacy-the fault of the defendant would normally result in the damage suffered by the obligee

F. “Cause-in-fact Test”

It is necessary that there be proof that defendant’s conduct is a factor in causing plantiff’s jurisdiction

The first step is to determine whether defendant’s conduct in point of fact was a factor in causing plaintiff’s damage. If the injury as to causes, in fact shows that the defendant’s conduct, in point of fact, was not a factor in causing plaintiff’s damage, the matter ends there, but if it be shown that his conduct was a factor in causing such damage, then the further would not have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent. The question is whether his conduct played such a part in causing the damage as would make him the author of such damage and liable therefor in the eyes of the law.

G. “But For” Test or sine qua non test

Defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact of the injury under this test if the damage would not have resulted had there been negligence on the part of the defendant

This is the test commonly applied in Philippine jurisdiction

-This test is frequently referred to as the sine qua non rule. The negligence need not be the sole cause of the injury. The actor is liable to respond in damages although there are other causes concurring with the negligence, as long as it is the “proximate concurring

cause,’’ or true cause, that is, the other cause or causes would not have produced the injury independently of his negligence.

“The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of 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, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57079, September 29, 1989)

H. Policy Tests of Negligence

If the damage or injury to the plantiff is beyond the limit of the liability fixed by law, the defendant’s conduct cannot be considered the proximate cause of the damage

1. Foresight perspective- the defendant is not liable for the unforeseeable consequences of his acta. Forseeability test- The defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury as a result

of his act or if his conduct was reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence and no liability.

b. Natural and probable consequences testc. Natural and ordinary or direct consequences test

2. Directness perspective- makes the defendant liable for damages which are beyond the riska. Hindsight testb. Orbit of risk test c. Substantial factor test— Under this test, if the actor’s conduct is a substantial factor in

bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not prevent him from being liable. In order to be a substantial factor in producing the harm, the causes set in motion by the defendant must continue until the moment of the damage or at least down the setting in motion of the final active injurious force which immediately produced or preceded the damage.

I. Concurrent Cause Intervening cause which merely cooperated with the primary cause and which did not

break the chain of causation The joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable