Practice question
A technician negligently contaminates drinking water. A user’s ordinary consumption produces poisoning. The causal sequence is proved and uninterrupted. Technician says swallowing, rather than contamination, was immediate. Which is best?
- Swallowing grants the technician automatic immunity.
- Only the cup can be legally responsible.
- The user’s ordinary action necessarily becomes an efficient intervening cause.
- Ordinary consumption as the immediate mechanism does not alone displace the contamination’s proximate role.
- Every water provider is liable regardless of proof.
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 2176 and 2194: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/gr_164749_2017.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.