Practice question
A shop negligently leaves a slippery spill. A customer slips because of it and is injured on impact with the floor. The shop argues only the floor is causal because impact was latest. What is correct on the stipulated continuous sequence?
- The floor’s existence automatically excuses every spill.
- The negligent spill can remain the proximate cause even though floor impact immediately produces the bodily injury.
- The shop becomes liable only if it owned the customer’s shoes.
- The customer must sue the floor as a legal person.
- Latest impact always displaces the earlier risk.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, article2176.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/gr_164749_2017.html — Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling, GR 164749, March 15 2017, main opinion: temporal proximity and natural causal chain.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jun2023/gr_254395_2023.html — Davao del Norte Electric Cooperative v Heirs of Lucas, GR 254395, June 14 2023, main opinion: earlier operative negligence despite later events.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.