Damages arising from negligence

Damages arising from negligence "My father was riding his motorcycle one evening, and he was traversing the highway which was under road re-blocking when he sideswiped the barricade placed by the construction company then bumped a concrete barrier that caused his instantaneous death. My family demanded compensation from the company however, the latter claimed that the cause of the death of my father was his own negligence. According to them, the construction site was sufficiently illuminated and manned by a flagman who saw that my father was not wearing a helmet and that he was speeding when he overtook another motorcycle until he lost control of his bike. Can we file a claim for damages against the company? BrenerDear Brener, For your information, the law applicable to your situation is Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which states:“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provision of this chapter.” Based on the facts you have provided, it appears that your father failed to observe the diligence required under the circumstances while the construction company had exercised all the precautions necessary to prevent such incident. Please be guided by the decision in the case of BJDC Construction vs. Lanuzo, et. al. (G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014), where the Supreme Court, through Honorable Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, stated:“Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs, negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company considering that it has shown its installation of the necessary warning signs and lights in the project site. In that context, the fatal accident was not caused by any instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. In contrast, Balbino had the exclusive control of how he operated and managed his motorcycle. The records disclose that he himself did not take the necessary precautions. As Zamora declared, Balbino overtook another motorcycle rider at a fast speed, and in the process could not avoid hitting a barricade at the site, causing him to be thrown off his motorcycle onto the newly cemented road. SPO1 Corporal’s investigation report corroborated Zamora’s declaration. This causation of the fatal injury went uncontroverted by the Lanuzo heirs. According to Dr. Abilay, the cause of death of Balbino was the fatal depressed fracture at the back of his head, an injury that Dr. Abilay opined to be attributable to his head landing on the cemented road after being thrown off his motorcycle. Considering that it was shown that Balbino was not wearing any protective head gear or helmet at the time of the accident, he was guilty of negligence in that respect. Had he worn the protective head gear or helmet, his untimely death would not have occurred.”Applying the above cited decision in your situation, your father was negligent because he overtook another motorcycle on fast speed during night time and he also failed to wear a helmet. The company on the other hand had undertaken the necessary precautions like the installation of warning devices, lights, flagman and barricades to prevent such incident. Thus, the claim for damages against the company will fail for lack of merit.This opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to ." - https://www.affordablecebu.com/