Scribd
Upload
129 views1 page

Legal Analysis: Child Negligence Case

A 6-year old girl was killed after a gift-wrapping counter at a department store fell on her while she was shopping with her mother. [1] The mother filed a complaint for damages against the store. [2] The store denied liability, arguing the mother was negligent for letting her daughter roam freely, and the girl was contributorily negligent. [3] The Court of Appeals found the store negligent, as a child under 9 cannot be held liable for negligence. It also did not find the mother negligent. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the girl's death was due to the store's negligence, not an accident, as a reasonable person would have ensured the counter did not pose a risk to

Uploaded by

Hearlie Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
129 views1 page

Legal Analysis: Child Negligence Case

A 6-year old girl was killed after a gift-wrapping counter at a department store fell on her while she was shopping with her mother. [1] The mother filed a complaint for damages against the store. [2] The store denied liability, arguing the mother was negligent for letting her daughter roam freely, and the girl was contributorily negligent. [3] The Court of Appeals found the store negligent, as a child under 9 cannot be held liable for negligence. It also did not find the mother negligent. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the girl's death was due to the store's negligence, not an accident, as a reasonable person would have ensured the counter did not pose a risk to

Uploaded by

Hearlie Ortega
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Jarco Marketing v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999

FACTS:

When respondent Criselda was signing her credit card slip at payment and verification counter in Syvels
Department Store in Makati, she felt a sudden gust of wind a heard a loud sound. She looked behind her and
saw her daughter Zhieneth (6 years old) on the floor pinned by the bulk of the stores gift-wrapping counter.

She was rushed to the hospital but died after 14 days.

Private respondents filed a complaint for damages.

Petitioners on the other hand, denied any liability imputing the negligence to Criselda for allowing her daughter
to roam freely in the department store. Alleging further, that the deceased committed contributory negligence
when she climbed the counter. Also herein petitioners defense is that they have exercised due diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection, supervision and control of their employees.

Trial Court favored petitioners, contemplating that Zhieneth’s action is the proximate cause of the accident.

CA favored respondents on it declared that ZHIENETH, who was below seven (7) years old at the time of the
incident, was absolutely incapable of negligence or other tort. It reasoned that since a child under nine (9)
years could not be held liable even for an intentional wrong, then the six-year old ZHIENETH could not be
made to account for a mere mischief or reckless act. It also absolved CRISELDA of any negligence, finding
nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in momentarily allowing ZHIENETH to walk while she signed the
document at the nearby counter.

ISSUE:

1. Was Zhieneth was guilty of contributory negligence?


2. Was the death of Zhieneth accidental or attributable to negligence?

HELD:
1. No. Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive presumption that favors
children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence
In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like
exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age,
unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment.

2. NEGLIGENCE. An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to


the defendant negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
We rule that the tragedy which befell ZHIENETH was no accident and that ZHIENETHs death could
only be attributed to negligence.
Part of res gestae. Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

You might also like