Practice question
An electrical utility’s negligent maintenance remains operative in an accident involving strong winds and a displaced roofing sheet. The evidence shows the intervening events did not break the causal link. The utility says weather automatically makes the consequence unforeseeable and ends every negligence claim. What does Davao del Norte teach?
- All weather invariably defeats liability.
- Any roofing sheet is automatically an efficient independent cause.
- Only the final physical object may be considered.
- The events’ foreseeability and actual causal connection must be examined; their labels do not automatically sever the chain.
- A utility is liable for every weather loss regardless of negligence or connection.
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.