Mark was inside his condominium unit when his cousin Joma barged in and confronted him about a business deal that had gone sour. The confrontation became heated and violent. Joma grabbed a heavy vase and threw it at Mark. However, Mark was able to avoid the vase, causing it to pass through the window and fall onto the street below, where it struck a pedestrian. The pedestrian suffered injuries. Is Mark liable for the pedestrian’s injuries? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, Mark is not liable for the pedestrian's injuries. Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, quasi-delict requires fault or negligence causing damage. While Article 2193 makes the head of a family liable for things falling from a building, liability does not attach
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 2193 of the Civil Code, who is primarily responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from a building?
Article 2193 of the Civil Code explicitly holds the head of a family residing in a building or part thereof responsible for things thrown or falling from it.
Why is an occupant exempt from liability under Article 2193 when an object thrown by a third person injures a pedestrian?
An occupant is not liable under Article 2193 if the injury was caused exclusively by a third party's intentional tort without any concurring negligence by the occupant.
Under the emergency rule in tort law, how is an occupant's instinctive action in dodging a thrown object characterized?
Under the emergency rule, instinctive actions taken for self-preservation during a sudden assault do not constitute fault or negligence.
What was the sole proximate cause of the pedestrian's injuries in the incident involving Mark and Joma?
Choices available with full access.
Which essential requisite of a quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code was absent with respect to Mark?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Falling Objects Liability
Under Article 2193 of the Civil Code, the head of a family residing in a building is liable for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the premises. While this liability is strict, it does not apply when the harm is caused exclusively by the intentional, tortious act of a third person without fault or negligence by the occupant. Where the occupant is completely blameless, the statutory presumption is overcome, and sole civil liability rests upon the third party who threw the object.
2. Quasi-Delict Elements
Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, a quasi-delict requires fault or negligence that serves as the proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause is the dominant force that produces the damage in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. The intentional, violent act of a third person constitutes an efficient intervening cause that completely breaks the causal connection attributable to the occupant, establishing the third party's tort as the sole proximate cause.
3. Emergency Rule
Under the emergency rule in tort law, a person confronted with sudden danger without time to consider the best action is not guilty of negligence for failing to adopt a safer alternative. Instinctive actions taken for self-preservation during an unprovoked physical assault do not constitute fault or imprudence. Because deliberate choice and foresight are absent in a sudden emergency, dodging a thrown missile is a lawful act of self-defense rather than a negligent act.