Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 839 views

    Gotesco Vs Chatto - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Raisa Helga Ysaac
    Petitioner owned a movie theater where respondents were injured when the ceiling of the balcony collapsed during a movie. [1] Respondents sued for damages. [2] The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding the petitioner was grossly negligent for failing to properly inspect and maintain the building. [3] The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued the collapse was due to force majeure. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, finding petitioner failed to prove the cause was force majeure and was still liable due to negligence, as they did not exercise due care in inspecting and maintaining the premises. [5] Property owners are liable for injuries caused by defects that could have

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gotesco Vs Chatto - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Raisa Helga Ysaac
    839 views1 page
    Petitioner owned a movie theater where respondents were injured when the ceiling of the balcony collapsed during a movie. [1] Respondents sued for damages. [2] The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding the petitioner was grossly negligent for failing to properly inspect and maintain the building. [3] The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued the collapse was due to force majeure. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, finding petitioner failed to prove the cause was force majeure and was still liable due to negligence, as they did not exercise due care in inspecting and maintaining the premises. [5] Property owners are liable for injuries caused by defects that could have

    Original Description:

    Torts Digest

    Original Title

    Gotesco vs Chatto_Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner owned a movie theater where respondents were injured when the ceiling of the balcony collapsed during a movie. [1] Respondents sued for damages. [2] The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding the petitioner was grossly negligent for failing to properly inspect and maintain the building. [3] The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued the collapse was due to force majeure. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, finding petitioner failed to prove the cause was force majeure and was still liable due to negligence, as they did not exercise due care in inspecting and maintaining the premises. [5] Property owners are liable for injuries caused by defects that could have

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    839 views1 page

    Gotesco Vs Chatto - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Raisa Helga Ysaac
    Petitioner owned a movie theater where respondents were injured when the ceiling of the balcony collapsed during a movie. [1] Respondents sued for damages. [2] The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding the petitioner was grossly negligent for failing to properly inspect and maintain the building. [3] The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued the collapse was due to force majeure. [4] The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, finding petitioner failed to prove the cause was force majeure and was still liable due to negligence, as they did not exercise due care in inspecting and maintaining the premises. [5] Property owners are liable for injuries caused by defects that could have

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    IV. Particular persons held liable by law proprietor of building/structure/thing G.R. No.

    . L-87584 June 16, 1992 GOTESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. GLORIA E. CHATTO and LINA DELZA CHATTO, respondents. FACTS: 1. 2. Respondents went to see the movie Mother Dear at Superama Theater owned by petitioner. Hardly ten minutes after entering the theater, the ceiling of the balcony collapsed. The theater was plunged into the darkness. Shocked and hurt, respondents managed to crawl under the fallen ceiling. As soon as they were able to get out, they walked to the nearby FEU hospital for treatment. The next day they transferred to UST hospital. Due to the continuing pain, respondent Gloria went to the US for further treatment. Respondents filed a case for damages. Trial court ruled in favor of respondents. a. The ceiling collapsed because of some structural construction or architectural defect. b. Petitioner is grossly negligent in failing to cause proper and adequate inspection and upkeep of the building. CA affirmed the decision. Petitioners defense: a. The ceiling of the balcony collapsed due to force majeure

    3. 4. 5.

    6. 7.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner is liable. HELD: YES Petitioner presented Mr. Ong as its witness. Mr. Ong admitted that he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed. The real reason why Mr. Ong could not explain the cause or reason is that he did not actually conduct the investigation. It was not shown that any causes denominated as force majeure obtained immediately before or at the time of the collapse of the ceiling. Such defects could have easily been discovered if only petitioner exercised due diligence and care in keeping and maintaining the premises. But as disclosed by Mr. Ong, there was no adequate inspection nor the nature and extent of the same. It is settled that: The owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement impliedly warrants that the premises, appliances and amusement devices are safe for the purpose for which they are designed, the doctrine being subject to no other exception or qualification than that he does not contract against unknown defects not discoverable by ordinary or 14 reasonable means. This implied warranty has given rise to the rule that: Where a patron of a theater or other place of public amusement is injured, and the thing that caused the injury is wholly and exclusively under the control and management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of events would not have happened if proper care had been exercised, its occurrence raises a 15 presumption or permits of an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. That presumption or inference was not overcome by the petitioner. Besides, even assuming for the sake of argument that, as petitioner vigorously insists, the cause of the collapse was due to force majeure, petitioner would still be liable because it was guilty of negligence, which the trial court denominated as gross. As gleaned from Bouvier's definition of and Cockburn's elucidation on force majeure for one to be exempt from any liability because of it, he must have exercised care, i.e., he should not have been guilty of negligence.

    You might also like