It is common ground that, in a faulty contractual situation, the mere proof of the existence of the contract and of non-compliance with it prima facie justifies a corresponding right of appeal. In this case, we note that when the applicant was shot on campus by nothing less than the security guard hired to maintain the peace and secure the premises, there is prima facie evidence that the respondents did not fulfill their obligation to provide a safe environment for their students. Offences are civil injustices based on an act or omission. If a person is guilty of culpa aquiliana, he is guilty of an act or omission. This act causes damages to someone else without any contractual relationship between the defendant and the victim. If a person causes such damage, he must compensate the victim. There is nothing mystical about the concept of Culpa aquiliana. The question is whether a defendant acted in the same manner as an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person would act in the same or similar circumstances. If this is not the case, and injuries and resulting damage have occurred, he may be negligent.
Have you or a family member been injured in an accident? Do you have questions about someone else`s possible negligence? Contact us at Maison Law for a free consultation and case review. We advise you on all legal options. When we represent you, our goal will be to get the highest bill you deserve. They teach whether a person is guilty of culpa aquiliana in every first semester crime course at any law school in America. The issue is whether a reasonably prudent person who is in the same situation as the defendant has foreseen harm to a person as a reasonable consequence of an act or omission. If the damage was foreseeable, there is a legal obligation for the person acting or failing to act to take reasonable precautions to cause harm to others. Pedestrian victims can be told that they cannot expect compensation for their injuries because their accident occurred outside a zebra crossing. It`s not true. Drivers owe people a „duty of care” on foot, no matter where they meet them. Your injuries are probably worth more than insurance companies will allow.
So don`t leave any compensation on the table that you might need to rebuild your life. PROBLEM#2: In the alternative, the FEU is liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. If you are the victim of a frightening mistake made by a negligent driver, discuss your options with lawyer Martin Gasparian. This is a free and confidential consultation. This could open your eyes to what it really takes for you to recover from your injury and get back on your feet financially. Lord. Gasparian believes that every client should work directly with their lawyer. This way, they can get honest advice and the personal attention to detail that their case deserves. California Civil Code Section 1714(a) imposes a general duty of care on any person in California.
In a relevant part, it is stated: „Everyone is liable, not only for the result of his intentional acts, but also for harm inflicted on others by his lack of ordinary care or skills in the management of his property or person.” Home » Glossary of Legal Terms » What is Culpa Aquiliana? QUESTION #1: What is the source of the FUE`s obligation to compensate Saludaga? What is needed to demonstrate the existence of this obligation of the FEU? FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a second-year law student at the University of the Far East (FEU) when he was shot dead on August 18, 1996 by Alejandro Rosete (Rosete), one of the security guards on duty at the school grounds. The petitioner was hastily sent to FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due to the injury he suffered. Meanwhile, Rosete was taken to the police station, where he explained that the shooting was accidental. Saludaga then filed a claim for damages against the defendants on the grounds that they had breached their obligation to provide students with a safe environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning. The defendants, in turn, filed a complaint with a third party against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation (Galaxy), the agency engaged by the defendant FEU to provide security services at its premises, and Mariano D. Imperial (Imperial), President of Galaxys, to compensate them for anything found in the applicant`s favour, where applicable; and to pay the attorney`s fees and costs of the lawsuit. [R]espondents cannot be held liable for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, since the defendants are not Rosete`s employers. The latter was hired by Galaxy.
The instructions given by the defendant security consultant to Galaxy and its security guards are generally no more than the requests usually provided for in the service contract entered into by a customer and a security authority. They cannot be interpreted as an element of control to treat respondents as Rosete`s employers. If someone else suffers harm as a result of such a breach, the defendant is likely to be characterized as negligent. For example, if a professional golfer pulled the pin 150 meters away while someone was preparing to remove that pin from the hole, it is predictable that the person removing the pin could be hit by the golf ball and injured.