Practice question
A defective alarm exists, but the claimant had complete timely warning from another source and was injured through an unrelated mechanism the alarm could not prevent. The court finds no causal role for its defect. Does the defect’s existence alone establish this injury claim?
- Yes; any defect supplies every element.
- No; actionable defect and causal contribution must not be conflated.
- Yes; all alarms guarantee all safety.
- No; alarms can never be causes.
- Yes; prior existence is conclusive causation.
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 2176 and 2194: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/mar1987/gr_l-65295_1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.