X hired Y as her driver for her daily commute to work. One Monday, X woke up an hour late. To get to work on time, she instructed Y to step on the pedal and drive fast. She also threatened to fire him if she got to work late or if he damaged her brand-new car during the drive. Afraid to lose his job, Y beat a red light along Osmeña Avenue. As a result, he hit a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the motorcycle driver. The bereaved family of the victim sued both X and Y for damages. X raised the defense that she was merely a passenger. As such, she could not be held liable for Y’s negligence. Is X correct? Reason(s).
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, X is not correct. Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, in motor vehicle mishaps, the vehicle owner present in the car is solidarily liable with the driver if the owner could have, by due diligence, prevented the misfortune. Additionally,
Unlock the full Civil Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, when is a vehicle owner present in the automobile solidarily liable with the driver?
Article 2184 explicitly holds a vehicle owner present in the automobile solidarily liable if due diligence could have prevented the mishap.
What presumption arises against an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code when an employee causes damage during work?
Article 2180 establishes a presumption of negligence in selection or supervision against employers when employees cause damage.
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, what is the nature of liability among joint tortfeasors in a quasi-delict?
Article 2194 provides that the responsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.
Why was X's defense that she was a 'mere passenger' rejected by law?
Choices available with full access.
What diligence must an employer-owner exercise under Article 2180 to rebut vicarious liability?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Owner-Passenger Liability
Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, in motor vehicle mishaps, the owner of the vehicle who is present inside the car is solidarily liable with his driver if he could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. An owner riding in his own vehicle cannot claim the status of a mere passive passenger. When the owner actively directs, approves, or fails to prevent the negligent driving of his employee, the law holds the owner directly and solidarily responsible for any death, injury, or damage caused to third parties.
2. Vicarious Liability
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. This vicarious liability rests on the presumption of negligence in the selection or supervision of employees (culpa in eligendo or culpa in vigilando). When an employer's presence inside the vehicle coincides with explicit instructions compelling the driver to commit traffic violations, the employer fails to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family, rendering her liable alongside her employee.
3. Solidary Liability
Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. When both the driver and the vehicle owner present inside the automobile contribute to the commission of a tortious act—such as when the owner instructs the driver to overspeed and beat a red light—they become joint tortfeasors. Consequently, the victim or the victim's heirs may institute an action for full recovery of damages against either the driver, the vehicle owner, or both simultaneously.