Practice question
A contractor leaves an unsecured heavy panel next to a busy walkway despite ordinary gusts being expected. A normal gust topples it and causes the injury that the unsecured placement risked. No independent efficient cause appears. Which is most relevant?
- Only whether the contractor wanted the injury.
- Only whether the wind had a name.
- Only the panel’s color.
- Only the claimant’s occupation.
- An ordinarily prudent person’s ability to anticipate injury from the unsecured panel under those conditions.
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.