Practice question
A defendant argues that Abrogar excuses any business that purchases naming rights, even where evidence proves its own negligent crowd-control decisions caused the injury. Which is sound?
- Naming rights erase all tort duties.
- The claimed blanket immunity does not follow; the proved operational role changes the causal inquiry.
- Business status precludes negligence.
- Only a cash donor can be liable.
- Any branding proves liability without a causal inquiry.
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.