creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an

animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or
similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a
more careful manner. [ Corinthian Gardens v. Tanjangco, 2008]
PNR v. Brunty, 2006 — A collision occurred between a car and a PNR train at 12 AM causing the death of Brunty, a passenger
of the car. The car was overtaking another car, with a blind curve ahead, when it hit the train. PNR was found negligent.
Doctrine: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. The test is, did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect,
adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary
conduct of the discreet pater familias of the Roman law.
Notes: The negligence of PNR consists in the inadequate safety precautions placed in the site. The extraordinary diligence
required of common carriers is not applicable in this case since Brunty was not a passenger.
PNR v. CA, 2007 — Amores was driving when he came to a railroad crossing. He stopped before crossing then proceeded. But
just as he was at the intersection, a PNR train turned up and collided with his car, killing him. There was neither a signal nor a
crossing bar at the intersection to warn motorists and aside from the railroad track, the only visible warning sign was a
dilapidated "stop, look, and listen" sign. No whistle blow was heard from the train before the collision. The SC held PNR liable,
and that Amores did everything, with absolute care and caution, to avoid the collission.
Doctrine: Negligence has been defined as ‘the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person

suffers injury.
Determining the diligence required
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the
situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform. [Sicam v. Jorge, 2007]
Generally, the degree of care required is graduated according to the danger a person or property attendant upon the activity
which the actor pursues or the instrumentality which he uses. The greater the danger the greater the degree of care required.
What is ordinary under extraordinary of conditions is dictated by those conditions; extraordinary risk demands extraordinary
care. Similarly, the more imminent the danger, the higher the degree of care. [ Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 1998]
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
A different, and older, approach has recognized distinct "degrees" of negligence itself, which is to say degrees of legal fault,
corresponding to required "degrees" of care. xxx It recognizes three "degrees" of negligence: slight negligence, which is failure
to use great care; ordinary negligence, which is failure to use ordinary care; and gross negligence, which is failure to use even
slight care. [ Prosser & Keeton]
Amedo v. Rio, 1954 — Managuit was a seaman. While he was on board the ship doing his job, he jumped into the water to
retrieve his 2-peso bill, which was blown by the wind. He drowned. His mother was not allowed to recover because in acting as
such, he was grossly negligent.
Doctrine: Gross negligence is defined to be the want of even slight care and diligence. By gross negligence is meant such
entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness,
and is indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury to person or property of others. It amounts to a reckless disregard of the
safety of person or property.
Notes: When the act is dangerous per se, doing it constitutes gross negligence.
Marinduque Iron Mines v. WCC, 1956 — Mamador was laborer. He boarded a company truck with others to go to work.
When it tried to overtake another truck, it turned over and hit a coconut tree. Mamador died. Upon complaint, the defense of
the company was that Mamador was notoriously negligent, for violating a company policy prohibiting riding in hauling trucks,
and was, thus, barred from recovery. The SC cited Corpus Juris to the effect that violation of a rule promulgated by a
commission or board is not negligence per se, much less that of a company policy. It may, however, evidence negligence. Even
granting that there was negligence, it certainly was not notorious.
Doctrine: Notorious negligence is the same as gross negligence, which implies a conscious indifference to consequences,
pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury, or utter disregard of consequences.
 Notes: Mere riding or stealing a ride on a hauling truck is not negligence, ordinarily, because transportation by truck is not
dangerous per se.
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo, 2007 — Dr. Ilao-Oreta failed to attend to a scheduled laparoscopic operation scheduled by the
spouses Ronquillo, to determine the cause of the wife's infertility. The wife already underwent pre-operation procedures at that
time. Dr. Ila-Oreta claimed that she was in good faith, only failing to account the time difference between the Philippines and
Hawaii, where she had her honeymoon. The SC ruled that her conduct was not grossly negligent, since the operation was only
exploratory. Her
"honeymoon excitement" was also considered.
Doctrine: Gross negligence is the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the entire absence of
care.
Notes: That she failed to consider the time difference was probably a big lie, since the estimated time of arrival is clearly
shown in the ticket.