You may have heard of cases in other countries where the "victim" sues the "tortfeasor" because of an injury which could have been avoided if the "victim" hadn't acted in the way that led him to suffer that injury.
Article 2179 provides two (2) instances of an injury where the victim owns some responsibility:
1.) The victim's pure negligence
2.) The victim's contributory negligence
If the victim was the one responsible for the very injury he suffered, Art. 2179 bars him from recovering any damages. If the injury was caused by the tortfeasor, but the victim was partially negligent (such as a drunk walking into the path of a car driven by another drunk -yes, it happens!) the court can reduce the damages the victim claims. This is because the law requires that the victim must take precautions to keep himself safe in his environment. A responsible victim, that is, a victim who was not negligent and was injured by the negligence of another, can fully claim his damages in court. A careless victim either cannot claim damages, or his claim for damages will be reduced by the court if his claim has some merit.
The cause of injury doesn't need to be the immediate cause. It may also be something that may have taken place some time ago but, not taken care of, became the cause of the injury.
Remember also: a child below 9 years old is not capable of contributory negligence under the law.
how about if i accidentally hit a dog in public road that suddenly appeared and ran from its owner's house and it died? what is the extent of my liability?...i know that it will be presumed that there is a negligence on my part but isn't it that there is also a negligence on the part of the owner?
ReplyDelete