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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and The CA

    Uploaded by

    Jenine Quiambao
    Caltex was found liable for a fire that started at their gas station and spread to neighboring houses under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The fire occurred while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into the underground storage tank at the gas station. The owners of the damaged houses sued Caltex. While the lower courts found no proof of negligence, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied because the gas station and its equipment were under Caltex's control, fires do not ordinarily occur without negligence during gasoline transfer, and Caltex provided no explanation for how the fire started. Caltex was therefore presumed negligent and liable for the damage caused by the fire.

    Copyright:

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

    Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and The CA

    Uploaded by

    Jenine Quiambao
    179 views1 page
    Caltex was found liable for a fire that started at their gas station and spread to neighboring houses under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The fire occurred while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into the underground storage tank at the gas station. The owners of the damaged houses sued Caltex. While the lower courts found no proof of negligence, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied because the gas station and its equipment were under Caltex's control, fires do not ordinarily occur without negligence during gasoline transfer, and Caltex provided no explanation for how the fire started. Caltex was therefore presumed negligent and liable for the damage caused by the fire.

    Original Description:

    torts digest

    Original Title

    Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and the CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Caltex was found liable for a fire that started at their gas station and spread to neighboring houses under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The fire occurred while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into the underground storage tank at the gas station. The owners of the damaged houses sued Caltex. While the lower courts found no proof of negligence, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied because the gas station and its equipment were under Caltex's control, fires do not ordinarily occur without negligence during gasoline transfer, and Caltex provided no explanation for how the fire started. Caltex was therefore presumed negligent and liable for the damage caused by the fire.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    179 views1 page

    Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and The CA

    Uploaded by

    Jenine Quiambao
    Caltex was found liable for a fire that started at their gas station and spread to neighboring houses under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The fire occurred while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into the underground storage tank at the gas station. The owners of the damaged houses sued Caltex. While the lower courts found no proof of negligence, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied because the gas station and its equipment were under Caltex's control, fires do not ordinarily occur without negligence during gasoline transfer, and Caltex provided no explanation for how the fire started. Caltex was therefore presumed negligent and liable for the damage caused by the fire.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Africa vs. Caltex, Boquiren and the CA| Makalintal G.R. No.

    L-12986, March 31, 1


    966 | 16 SCRA 448
    FACTS
    A fire broke out at the Caltex service station in Manila. It started whi
    le gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, righ
    t at the opening of the receiving truck where the nozzle of the hose was inserte
    d The fire then spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the p
    ersonal properties and effects inside them.
    The owners of the houses, among them petitioners here, sued Caltex (owne
    r of the station) and Boquiren (agent in charge of operation).
    Trial court and CA found that petitioners failed to prove negligence and
    that respondents had exercised due care in the premises and with respect to the
    supervision of their employees. Both courts refused to apply the doctrine of re
    s ipsa loquitur on the grounds that as to its applicability xxx in the Philippine
    s, there seems to be nothing definite, and that while the rules do not prohibit i
    ts adoption in appropriate cases, in the case at bar, however, we find no practic
    al use for such docrtrine.

    ISSUES & ARGUMENTS


    W/N without proof as to the cause and origin of the fire, the doctrine of res ip
    sa loquitur should apply as to presume negligence on the part of the appellees.
    HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
    DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES. CALTEX LIABLE.
    Res ipsa Loquitur is a rule to the effect that where the thing which caus
    ed the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of defendant or
    his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does n
    ot happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it afford
    s reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation of defendant, that the incident
    happened because of want of care.
    The aforesaid principle enunciated in Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and
    Development Co. is applicable in this case. The gasoline station, with all its a
    ppliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of appellees. A fire o
    ccurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The person who
    knew or could have known how the fire started were the appellees and their emplo
    yees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is fair and reasonable
    inference that the incident happened because of want of care.
    The report by the police officer regarding the fire, as well as the stat
    ement of the driver of the gasoline tank wagon who was transferring the contents
    thereof into the underground storage when the fire broke out, strengthen the pr
    esumption of negligence. Verily, (1) the station is in a very busy district and
    pedestrians often pass through or mill around the premises; (2) the area is used
    as a car barn for around 10
    taxicabs owned by Boquiren; (3) a store where people hang out and possibly smoke
    cigarettes is located one meter from the hole of the underground tank; and (4)
    the concrete walls adjoining the neighborhood are only 2 meters high at most and
    cannot prevent the flames from leaping over it in case of fire.
    Decision REVERSED. Caltex liable.

    You might also like