Practice question
A person carelessly leaves a dangerous obstacle across a pedestrian passage. A passerby is injured by it, and the required duty, negligence, damage, and proximate causation are established. There is no pre-existing contract. The defendant says no liability exists because the injury was not intended. Which is correct?
- Article 2176 may impose liability despite the absence of intent to injure.
- No negligent act can create a civil obligation.
- A written contract is always indispensable.
- Every unintentional injury is force majeure.
- The passerby must prove personal hatred.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1173,2176–2179 and 2185.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/18/70498 — Laza v Standard Insurance, GR 279772, June 29 2026, main opinion: negligent conduct, damage, and proximate cause.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.