Practice question
A donor funds a public exhibition. Its only contribution is lawful financing; it neither controls operations nor commits another relevant wrong. A contractor’s unrelated defective installation causes injury. Claimant argues that the exhibition would not exist without the donation. Which is best?
- That historical funding argument alone does not establish the donor’s proximate causal liability.
- Historical necessity automatically establishes every donor’s liability.
- Any large donation is presumed negligent.
- The contractor’s proven wrong must be ignored.
- An exhibition can have only one historical contributor.
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.