1.

Breach of contract

2. Quasi-delict is an act, whether punishable or not punishable by law,

whether criminal or not criminal in character, whether intentional or
voluntary or negligent, which results in damage to another.

3. Elements of quasi-delict

A person may be held liable for quasi-delict if the following requisites

concur:

1. There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence

2. Damage caused by the said act or omission
3. Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.
4. There must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between the
parties.

4. Yes. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be
liable for damages to the other contracting party.

5. Defenses

6. Resort

7. Damnum absque injuria

There can be damage without injury. A person may have been physically
hurt, but if no legal wrong was committed, there can be no injury.

A person who was carefully driving his car one rainy day was blinded by
lightning at the time of the accident when he hit a pedestrian. While
there was an injury, yet no legal wrong was committed because the
accident was caused by a fortuitous event.

8. Culpa aquiliana vs culpa criminal

11. Doctrine of proximate cause – 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. One of the
essential facts which the plaintiff must prove in order that he can recover from
the defendant is the relation of cause and effect between the defendant’s
negligence and the damage or injury which he has incurred.

13. Attractive nuisance – an owner is liable if he maintains in his premises

dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to lure children
in play and he fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children of tender age
from playing therewith or resorting thereto. This serves as a limitation to the
rule on contributory negligence. Liability exists even if the child is a trespasser
so long as he is not of sufficient age or discretion.

14. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - where a thing is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or of his servants and the accident is such as is in
the ordinary course of events does not happen if those who have the
management had used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care.

16. p.1174 jurado no. 33

The contention is not tenable because Nerson was negligent in not

checking the brakes before approaching the slope. He could have used
the gears to slow down then descend.

20. p. 842 albano

Where the injury is due to concurrent negligence of the drivers of the

colliding vehicles, the drivers and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily,
directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial that one action is
based on quasi-delict and the other on culpa contractual, as the solidarity of the
obligation is justified by the very nature thereof.