Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8K views

    Article 2183

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Joyce Bucu
    This document discusses liability for damages caused by animals according to Philippine civil law. It provides definitions of different types of damages and discusses when possessors of animals may be held responsible for damages caused. Specifically, it notes that possessors are responsible for damages caused by their animals regardless of negligence. However, liability may cease in cases of force majeure or fault of the injured party. The document also discusses when plaintiffs may deprive themselves of the right to complain - such as by knowingly exposing themselves to a known dangerous animal without the owner's knowledge. It notes that moral damages require a legal basis and cannot be substituted for civil indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Article 2183

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Joyce Bucu
    8K views2 pages
    This document discusses liability for damages caused by animals according to Philippine civil law. It provides definitions of different types of damages and discusses when possessors of animals may be held responsible for damages caused. Specifically, it notes that possessors are responsible for damages caused by their animals regardless of negligence. However, liability may cease in cases of force majeure or fault of the injured party. The document also discusses when plaintiffs may deprive themselves of the right to complain - such as by knowingly exposing themselves to a known dangerous animal without the owner's knowledge. It notes that moral damages require a legal basis and cannot be substituted for civil indemnity.

    Original Description:

    article 2183

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses liability for damages caused by animals according to Philippine civil law. It provides definitions of different types of damages and discusses when possessors of animals may be held responsible for damages caused. Specifically, it notes that possessors are responsible for damages caused by their animals regardless of negligence. However, liability may cease in cases of force majeure or fault of the injured party. The document also discusses when plaintiffs may deprive themselves of the right to complain - such as by knowingly exposing themselves to a known dangerous animal without the owner's knowledge. It notes that moral damages require a legal basis and cannot be substituted for civil indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8K views2 pages

    Article 2183

    Uploaded by

    Aleli Joyce Bucu
    This document discusses liability for damages caused by animals according to Philippine civil law. It provides definitions of different types of damages and discusses when possessors of animals may be held responsible for damages caused. Specifically, it notes that possessors are responsible for damages caused by their animals regardless of negligence. However, liability may cease in cases of force majeure or fault of the injured party. The document also discusses when plaintiffs may deprive themselves of the right to complain - such as by knowingly exposing themselves to a known dangerous animal without the owner's knowledge. It notes that moral damages require a legal basis and cannot be substituted for civil indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Article 2183 - The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of

    the same is responsible for the damage, which it may cause, although
    it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the
    damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
    person who has suffered damage.
    Article 2197 Damages may be:
    1. Actual or compensatory;
    2. Moral;
    3. Nominal;
    4. Temperate;
    5. Liquidated; or
    6. Exemplary or corrective
    Article 2216 No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
    moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be
    adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones,
    is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of
    each case.
    FOR PROSECUTION
    According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the
    Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of
    vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It
    is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he
    who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer
    for the damage which such animal may cause. (Vestil vs. IAC, 179
    SCRA 48)
    The rule generally is that there is no liability where a wrongful act of
    the injured person contributed to the injury. Even where warning signs
    are posted on the place, the owner of the known bad dog is not to be
    exempted from liability to one who is rightfully on the premises. (Burke
    vs. Fischer, 298 Ky. 157)
    The gist of an action for damages by a vicious dog, whose propensities
    are known, is not negligence in the manner of keeping the dog; it is
    keeping the dog at all; and, the action is founded upon the theory of

    maintenance of a nuisance, not negligence. (Jaco v. Baker, 174 Or 191,


    148 P2d 938)
    The word damage in these articles comprehends all that are
    embraced in its meaning. It includes any and damages that a human
    being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his life: physical
    or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial,
    economic, social, political, religious. (Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., 82
    Phil 360)
    FOR DEFENSE
    A person who unnecessarily or without cause or excuse knowingly
    places himself within the reach of a wild animal securely fastened
    which he knows to be dangerous, he cannot recover for the injury
    resulting from an attack by such animal. A plaintiff may also deprive
    himself of a right to complain, if notwithstanding warnings given to him
    and without the knowledge of the keeper, he exposes himself to be
    attacked. (57 Am Jur. 2d pp. 326-27, 329)
    Moral Damages may not be awarded if there is no legal basis therof,
    nor may it be imposed in substitution of civil indemnity. (People vs.
    Maramara, 317 SCRA 222)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy