Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 289 views

    5 Transporto VS Mijares

    Uploaded by

    Jigs Jiggalow
    This case involves a dispute over damages arising from an accident involving a firecracker. The plaintiff willingly participated in a bet where the defendant tied a firecracker to the plaintiff's hand. When the firecracker exploded, the plaintiff's hand was injured. The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury based on the legal doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means that no wrong is done to one who consents. As the plaintiff consented to the risky activity, he is barred from recovering damages.

    Copyright:

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

    5 Transporto VS Mijares

    Uploaded by

    Jigs Jiggalow
    289 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over damages arising from an accident involving a firecracker. The plaintiff willingly participated in a bet where the defendant tied a firecracker to the plaintiff's hand. When the firecracker exploded, the plaintiff's hand was injured. The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury based on the legal doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means that no wrong is done to one who consents. As the plaintiff consented to the risky activity, he is barred from recovering damages.

    Original Description:

    5 TRANSPORTO VS MIJARES

    Original Title

    5 TRANSPORTO VS MIJARES

    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 case involves a dispute over damages arising from an accident involving a firecracker. The plaintiff willingly participated in a bet where the defendant tied a firecracker to the plaintiff's hand. When the firecracker exploded, the plaintiff's hand was injured. The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury based on the legal doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means that no wrong is done to one who consents. As the plaintiff consented to the risky activity, he is barred from recovering damages.

    Copyright:

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

    5 Transporto VS Mijares

    Uploaded by

    Jigs Jiggalow
    This case involves a dispute over damages arising from an accident involving a firecracker. The plaintiff willingly participated in a bet where the defendant tied a firecracker to the plaintiff's hand. When the firecracker exploded, the plaintiff's hand was injured. The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury based on the legal doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means that no wrong is done to one who consents. As the plaintiff consented to the risky activity, he is barred from recovering damages.

    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 1

    TRANSPORTO VS MIJARES Case Flow:

    RTC denied
    CA sustained dismissal
    SC affirmed CA
    FACTS:
     Plaintiff Antonio Transporto, a sugar analyst for La Carlota Sugar Planters Association and
    defendant Herani Mijares, a chemist for La Carlota Sugar (note: different company sila pero
    same office);
     On Dec 23, 1956, plaintiff saw a huge firecracker at the desk of Vicente, an officemate;
     Plaintiff boasted that if held tightly, one would not get hurt by the explosion. Those who
    heard him laughed mockingly, so he challenged his officemates for 100 to prove his stupid
    point, despite being warned by owner that it was a real firecracker;
     Only defendant agreed to bet but only for 20, which plaintiff agreed;
     They went outside and the defendant tied the firecracker at plaintiffs hand as per order of
    plaintiff;
     When it exploded, plaintiff exclaimed to defendant that he lost, however on his way inside,
    one officemate told the former his hand was bleeding. He looked at his hand and said “well,
    it’s an accident and it’s my fault.” Man jud.
     He asked to be taken to the hospital for 14 days and incurred around 400;
     He did not receive any salary for he was not accepted by the company after discharge, he
    asked help from defendant and the latter agreed to give 1000, 500 of which was deposited on
    Jan 1957;
     In Feb, plaintiff demanded for remaining 500 (di lang tanga, baga pag nawong), but defendant
    refused;
     Plaintiff filed an action for damages at RTC alleging that when the fuse was ignited, he asked
    the defendant to call of the bet but defendant refused, so gipaputok nalang sa gago.
     RTC dismissed, CA sustained dismissal
    Issue: WON petitioner is entitled for damages
    Held:
    - Hell no!
    - This case is governed by the doctrine volenti not fit injura (no wrong is done to him who
    consents);
    - In addition, the assumption of risk is applicable to this case which reads:
    o One who voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from a known danger is debarred from
    a recovery is recognized in negligence cases
    - It is said that one who knows, appreciates and deliberately exposes himself to a danger
    assumes the risk thereof;
    - Moreover, if plaintiff did not like to take the risk, he could have diffused the fuse with other
    arm or smashed it to the ground. Duh

    For further reference on assumption of risk, please see my digest of Abrogar vs Cosmos and
    Intergames. You’re welcome. ;)

    You might also like