Practice question
A defendant confuses two inquiries: whether a prudent organizer should anticipate traffic injury and whether a particular runner actually understood and voluntarily accepted the specific fatal risk. What distinction does Abrogar support?
- They are always identical
- Objective reasonable foresight differs from the participant-specific assumption-of-risk inquiry
- General road awareness conclusively proves informed acceptance of every risk
- Subjective optimism always decides negligence
- The runner’s knowledge automatically establishes the organizer’s diligence
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 1735, 1755-1756, 2176, 2179, 2184-2185 and 2214: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., 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.