Practice question
A claimant relies solely on a highly unusual injury that could be imagined only after combining unrelated events. The court finds no reasonable ground for an ordinarily prudent person at the time to expect that injury, and no other liability basis applies. The claimant says actual occurrence alone proves foresight was required. Which is correct?
- Actual occurrence makes every consequence foreseeable retroactively.
- Every defendant must predict every conceivable combination.
- Hindsight alone does not establish the required reasonable foreseeability on the stipulated findings.
- Only the claimant’s later certainty matters.
- The defendant automatically acted intentionally because harm occurred.
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: ordinarily prudent expectation at the time of act or default.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_173146_2009.html — Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative v Balen, GR 173146, November 25 2009, main opinion: foreseeability test.
- 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: foreseeable intervening events.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.