2176-2194)
-
necessitating
only
a
preponderance of evidence to
prevail.
- Employers
liability
for
the
negligent
conduct
of
the
subordinate is direct and primary,
subject to the defense of due
diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee.
- The enforcement of the judgment
against the employer in an action
based on Art. 2176 does not
require the employee to be
insolvent since the nature of the
liability of the employer with that of
the employee is solidary. They are
considered statutorily tortfeasors.
2. Art. 103 of the RPC which provides
that an employer may be held
subsidiarily civilly liable for a felony
committed by his employee in the
discharge of his duty.
- This liability attaches when the
employee is convicted of a
crime done in the performance
of his work and is found to be
insolvent that renders him
unable to properly respond to
the civil liability adjudged.
- A hearing must be set of the
purpose of determining:
(1) The existence of employeremployee relationship;
(2) That
the
employer
is
engaged in some kind of
industry;
(3) That
the
employee
is
adjudged
guilty
of
the
wrongful act and found to
have committed the offense
in the discharge of his duties
(not necessarily any offense
he commits while in the
discharge of such duties);
and
constitutes
no
bar
to
the
commission of a tort by one
against
the
other
and
the
consequent recovery of damages.
This is now settled. As a matter of
fact, the action of recovery of
damages may even be predicated
on both breach of contract and a
tort at the same time.
(1)Proximate cause - the relation
of cause and effect between the
defendants negligence and the
damage or injury which he has
incurred.
- Known as the doctrine of
proximate cause defined as
that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and
without which the result would
not have occurred.
(2) Doctrine of contributory
negligence if the negligence
of the plaintiff cooperated with
the negligence of the defendant
in bringing about the accident
causing the injury complained
of, such negligence of the
plaintiff would be an absolute
bar to recovery.
- If the negligence of the plaintiff
was merely contributory to his
injury, the immediate and
proximate cause of the accident
causing the injury being the
defendants negligence, such
negligence would not be a bar
to recovery, but the amount
recoverable shall be mitigated
by the courts.
- Negligence is contributory only
when it contributes proximately