Practice question
A business leaves a known unstable sign unsecured despite warnings and a feasible repair. A storm then dislodges it onto a passerby. The court finds the omitted repair contributed proximately to the injury. The business claims the storm necessarily supplies complete immunity. Which answer follows Mindex's principle?
- Any storm necessarily creates complete immunity
- The proved negligent contribution prevents automatic reliance on the storm as an exculpatory fortuitous event
- Warnings are irrelevant whenever wind occurs
- Only intentional injury can create liability
- The passerby must have predicted the exact falling moment
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 1173–1174 and 2176–2178: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Mindex Resources Development v. Morillo, GR 138123, March 12, 2002, main decision, fortuitous-event discussion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_138123_2002.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.