|
Damages arising from negligence or fault
(Manila Standard Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)At one time or another we have probably heard about the McDonald's incident where a drive-through customer spilled a cup of hot coffee on her lap, promptly sued McDonald's, and was awarded a whopping $2.9 million in damages. This is the true story of Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old lady in New Mexico, USA, who sued McDonald's in 1992 on account of the burns she suffered from the coffee she spilled on herself which she said needed two years of rehabilitation and treatment (www.stellaawards.com).
From this case sprung many frivolous lawsuits in the United States, where people sue for outrageous reasons, and even more unbelievably, would actually win such cases. For example, Michelle Knepper of Vancouver, Washington, picked a doctor out of the phone book to do her liposuction, and went ahead with the procedure even though the doctor was only a dermatologist, not a plastic surgeon. When she suffered complications, she filed a complaint, saying she never would have chosen that doctor had she known he wasn't board certified in the procedure. So she sued the phone company since she had relied solely on the phone listing! She won an award of $1.2 million for herself plus $375,000 for her husband for "loss of spousal services and companionship."
In 2002, Kathleen Ann McCormick, an obese, heavy smoker woman from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, had high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a family history of coronary artery disease. Yet according to her, doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center "did not do enough" to convince her to work on improving her own health. Unsurprisingly, she had a heart attack which, she says in a federal lawsuit, left her a "cardiac invalid." In addition to eight doctors, she sued their employer--the US government--demanding a minimum of $1 million in compensation. This case remains pending.
Cases like these are not uncommon in the United States. The American culture seems to encourage greedy people and even greedier lawyers to use the justice system to get rich quickly. And the courts that generously award such unreasonable lawsuits aren't helping to lighten the situation, leading to an assortment of disclaimers by establishments printed in product cartons or in shops, bordering on the ridiculous.
Under the American law these cases are called torts (damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully or negligently). In the Philippines, cases like these are known as a quasi-delict. It is called delict (offense), because a wrong was committed but it is qualified as quasi because the wrong was not done with malice and unlawful intent but rather arose from negligence or fault. Acts or omissions that cause damage to another give rise to legal action to recover compensation for injury suffered.
In the Philippines, cases on torts and damages are fairly uncommon. A majority of suits for damages come from vehicular mishaps and other accidents which are known to most as reckless imprudence resulting in damage to persons or property. The Wowowee incident is one example of reckless imprudence that led to loss of lives and property. But very much unlike our western neighbors in the world, where people tend to sue at the drop of a hat, Filipinos are much less aggressive, sometimes to a fault, in asserting their rights, especially as consumers. When we suffer the fate of having bought a defective product or encounter shabby service, we say it was tough luck. And when somebody does speak up, local companies, for their part, almost always offer no relief to the complaining customer.
While I shudder at the prospect of seeing absurd and frivolous lawsuits flourish in the Philippines, I think that it is time for us to learn to speak up whenever we are confronted with what may appear as minor injustices. Our laws do give us a plethora of protection but we do not seem too concerned with them. For instance, Article 19 of the Civil Code states that: "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." Many other laws in both the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code provide that when one willfully or negligently causes damage to another, he shall indemnify that person on top of being criminally penalized.
The Supreme Court has relied on such provisions in the law in awarding damages to complainants in several cases. In one case, (Francisco vs Ferrer, GR no. 142029, Feb. 28, 2001) the Supreme Court awarded damages because the facts established in the case showed that the bake shop failed to deliver the wedding cake for the wedding because the order slip got lost, despite the fact that the cake had been paid for. In another case (Grand Union Supermarket Inc. vs Espino, GR no. L-48250, Dec. 28, 1979), wherein the plaintiff was falsely accused of shoplifting, the court held that an award of damages was warranted. The court said that the victim (the plaintiff) was not only falsely accused, he was also detained and interrogated by the uniformed guards and shouted at in the presence and hearing of many people at the supermarket which caused him humiliation and embarrassment.
While the courts should not be treated as a recourse at every instance when we suffer even a slight grievance, much less as a money-making machine, we nonetheless must be conscious of our rights. No, in fact, we have a duty to stand up for them whenever they are being transgressed or we, as a people, will never mature.
E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com
[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]
|
INDUSTRIES
Activate Email 
Find Solutions for Enterprises, SMBs & Service Providers at the INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference and EXPO East, January 20-22, 2010. Miami, FL.
