Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Yobido v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sharon Marie Pinaroc
    The Court of Appeals ruled that the explosion of a newly installed tire on a passenger bus that resulted in the death of a passenger was not a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability. While the trial court had ruled the explosion was due to a fortuitous event, the Court of Appeals stated that merely being new was not enough to prove it was free from defect or was properly mounted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, noting that a common carrier must still prove it was not negligent even in cases of alleged force majeure or fortuitous events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Yobido v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sharon Marie Pinaroc
    5 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals ruled that the explosion of a newly installed tire on a passenger bus that resulted in the death of a passenger was not a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability. While the trial court had ruled the explosion was due to a fortuitous event, the Court of Appeals stated that merely being new was not enough to prove it was free from defect or was properly mounted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, noting that a common carrier must still prove it was not negligent even in cases of alleged force majeure or fortuitous events.

    Original Description:

    yobido

    Original Title

    152. Yobido v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court of Appeals ruled that the explosion of a newly installed tire on a passenger bus that resulted in the death of a passenger was not a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability. While the trial court had ruled the explosion was due to a fortuitous event, the Court of Appeals stated that merely being new was not enough to prove it was free from defect or was properly mounted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, noting that a common carrier must still prove it was not negligent even in cases of alleged force majeure or fortuitous events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views1 page

    Yobido v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Sharon Marie Pinaroc
    The Court of Appeals ruled that the explosion of a newly installed tire on a passenger bus that resulted in the death of a passenger was not a fortuitous event exempting the carrier from liability. While the trial court had ruled the explosion was due to a fortuitous event, the Court of Appeals stated that merely being new was not enough to prove it was free from defect or was properly mounted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, noting that a common carrier must still prove it was not negligent even in cases of alleged force majeure or fortuitous events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    YobidoPetitionerdefendantvs.Courtofappealsetal.

    respondents

    Ponente:Romero,J.,

    Facts:OnApril261988,spousesTitoandLenyTumboyandtheirminorchildrenboardedaYobido
    Linerbus.Ontheirway,theleftfronttireofthebusexplodedandthebusfellintoaravinewhich
    resultedtothedeathofTitoandphysicalinjuriesoftheotherpassengers.Thewife(LenyTumboy
    statedthatthebusisrunningfastonauncementedroadwhileitisraining.Ontheotherhandthe
    petitionercontendedthattheexplosionofthetirewasduetoafortuitouseventandthetireisnewatthe
    timeoftheaccident.Thetrialcourtruledinfavorofthepetitionerthattheexplosionwasduetoa
    fortuitousevent.TheCourtofAppealsruledotherwisestatingthattheexplosionisnotfortuitousjust
    becausethetireisanewGoodyeartireandsuchfactisnotsufficienttodischargedefendantsburden.

    Issue:Istheexplosionofthenewlyinstalledtireofpassengervehicleisafortuitouseventthatexempts
    thecarrierfromliabilityforthedeathofapassenger?

    Held:No,theexplosionofthenewlyinstalledtireisnotafortuitouseventbecausethefactthatthetire
    isnewitdoesnotimplythatitwasentirelyfreefrommanufacturersdefectorthatitwasproperly
    mountedtothevehicle.Moreover,acommoncarriermaynotbeabsolvedfromliabilityincaseof
    forcemajeureorfortuitousevent.Thecommoncarriermuststillprovethatitwasnotnegligentin
    causingthedeathorinjuryresultingfromanaccident.ThereforethedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsis
    affirmed.

    Characteristicoffortuitousevent:

    1. Thecauseoftheunforeseenandunexpectedoccurrence,orfailureofthedebtortocomply
    withhisobligations,mustbeindependentofhumanwill;

    2. Itmustbeimpossibletoforeseetheeventwhichconstitutethecasofortuito,orifitisforeseen
    itisimpossibletoavoid;

    3. Theoccurrencemustbesuchastorenderitimpossibleforthedebtortofulfillhisobligation
    inanormalmanner;

    4. Theobligormustbefreefromanyparticipationinaggravationoftheinjuryresultingtothe
    creditor.

    You might also like