Practice question
A custodian leaves another person's property in an exposed place for an extended period despite an available reasonable safeguard. A third person unexpectedly destroys it. The custodian argues that unpredictability of the attack alone proves every element of fortuity, even though negligent exposure contributed to the loss. Which answer is correct?
- An unexpected attack necessarily eliminates the custodian's fault
- The court must consider both unforeseeability or inevitability and the custodian's contributing neglect; unexpected timing alone is insufficient
- Every third-party act automatically makes the custodian an insurer
- Only the attacker's wealth matters
- The harmed owner must accept the word fortuitous as conclusive
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.