Practice question
A defendant identifies a later storm but offers no analysis of its independence or of the defendant’s continuing negligence. The claimant proves a continuous foreseeable sequence, and the court finds no efficient break. Which answer follows Davao del Norte?
- The word storm alone does not establish a chain-breaking cause.
- Every storm excuses every defendant.
- All natural events are necessarily independent of every negligent risk.
- A claimant can never recover if wind occurred.
- A defendant is automatically liable for all storm losses without proof.
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: character of intervening events and remote occasion.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_161803_2008.html — Dy Teban Trading v Ching, GR 161803, February 4 2008, main opinion: foreseeable consequence is not an efficient break.
- 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: winds and roofing sheet did not automatically break causal chain.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.