AFIALDA v HISOLE [G.R. No. L-2075. November 29, 1949.] MARGARITA AFIALDA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BASILIO HISOLE and
FRANCISCO HISOLE, defendants- appellees.
FACTS:
The now deceased, Loreto Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation; that while tending the animals he was, on March 21, 1947, gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries; that the mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure; and that plaintiff is his elder sister and heir depending upon him for support.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which reads:
"The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away.
"This liability shall cease only in case the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it."
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Lower Court: owner of an animal is answerable only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under article 1902 of the same code.
ISSUE:
whether the owner of the animal is liable when the damage is caused to its caretaker.
RULING:
No.
Under article 1905 of the Civil Code, the owner of an animal is not liable for injury caused by it to its caretaker.
For the statute names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.
In the present case, the animal was in the custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.
FACTS:
The now deceased, Loreto Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation; that while tending the animals he was, on March 21, 1947, gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries; that the mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure; and that plaintiff is his elder sister and heir depending upon him for support.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which reads:
"The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away.
"This liability shall cease only in case the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it."
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Lower Court: owner of an animal is answerable only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at fault under article 1902 of the same code.
ISSUE:
whether the owner of the animal is liable when the damage is caused to its caretaker.
RULING:
No.
Under article 1905 of the Civil Code, the owner of an animal is not liable for injury caused by it to its caretaker.
For the statute names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.
In the present case, the animal was in the custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment