Practice question
A safety cover is negligently omitted from a machine. A user’s expected hand movement leads to contact with exposed parts; the omitted cover is proved to be an operative cause. Operator says the exposure was only a condition, while movement was the sole cause. Which is best?
- The label does not displace the established protective failure’s causal role.
- Any human movement necessarily grants immunity.
- An omitted cover can never be causal.
- Only the hand can be sued.
- The absence of motion in the machine’s casing decides liability.
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.