Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 189 views

    Amedo v. Rio

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    Elena Amedo sought compensation from Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. for the death of her son Filomeno Managuit. Managuit drowned after jumping into the sea 1 1/2 miles from shore to retrieve a 2 peso bill that blew from his hand. The court held that Rio was not liable as Managuit's death was due to his own "notorious negligence", defined as a lack of even slight care, recklessness endangering one's safety, and conscious indifference to danger.

    Copyright:

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

    Amedo v. Rio

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    189 views1 page
    Elena Amedo sought compensation from Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. for the death of her son Filomeno Managuit. Managuit drowned after jumping into the sea 1 1/2 miles from shore to retrieve a 2 peso bill that blew from his hand. The court held that Rio was not liable as Managuit's death was due to his own "notorious negligence", defined as a lack of even slight care, recklessness endangering one's safety, and conscious indifference to danger.

    Original Description:

    Torts

    Original Title

    (017) Amedo v. Rio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Elena Amedo sought compensation from Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. for the death of her son Filomeno Managuit. Managuit drowned after jumping into the sea 1 1/2 miles from shore to retrieve a 2 peso bill that blew from his hand. The court held that Rio was not liable as Managuit's death was due to his own "notorious negligence", defined as a lack of even slight care, recklessness endangering one's safety, and conscious indifference to danger.

    Copyright:

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

    Amedo v. Rio

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    Elena Amedo sought compensation from Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. for the death of her son Filomeno Managuit. Managuit drowned after jumping into the sea 1 1/2 miles from shore to retrieve a 2 peso bill that blew from his hand. The court held that Rio was not liable as Managuit's death was due to his own "notorious negligence", defined as a lack of even slight care, recklessness endangering one's safety, and conscious indifference to danger.

    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

    Elena Amedo v. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc.

    GR No. L-6870
    May 24, 1954

    CONCEPCION, J.:

    FACTS:
    Elena Amedo (Amedo) sought to collect from Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc. (Rio) a sum for the
    compensation for the death of her son. The facts has had shown that while her son Filomeno
    Managuit (Managuit) was on board the M/S Pillar II, which was about 1 ½ miles from the shore of
    Arceli Dumarang, Managuit’s 2 peso bill was blown by the wind and fell to the sea.. Managuit
    wanting to retrieve the said bill, jump into the sea and drowned.

    NOTE: During the time the action was filed, the Workmen’s Compensation Act was
    amended by RA 772 which changed the phrase “due to and in pursuance of” to “arising out
    of” which was intended that accidents must result due to his employment.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the company is liable for the accident in question

    HELD:
    No, it was all due to the Notorious Negligence of Managuit

    The phrase "notorious negligence" has been held to be tantamount to "gross negligence", which, in
    turn, has been defined as follows:
    - Gross negligence is define to be the want of even slight care and diligence.
    - By gross negligence is meant "such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the
    person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness, and is indifferent,
    or worse, to the danger of injury to person or property of others." ...
    - The negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property."
    - It cannot be denied that in jumping into the sea, one mile and a half from the seashore of
    Arceli, Dumarang, Palawan, Filomeno failed to exercise "even slight care and diligence," that
    he displayed a "reckless disregard of the safety" of his person, that he could not have been
    but conscious of the probable consequences" of his carelessness and that he was
    "indifferent, or worse, to the danger of injury.

    You might also like