Bro, gross Negligence has been defined in numerous jurisprudence in this wise:
Gross negligence is define to be the want of even slight care and diligence. (Mobile and M. R. Co. vs. Aschcraft [1872] 48 Ala., 15.)
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." (Wall vs. Cameron [1882] 6 Colo., 275; see, also, The Law Governing Labor Disputes in the Philippines by Francisco, 2nd ed., p. 877.)
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.
Thus, in the case of Government of the Philippines vs. The Manila Electric Co. (40 Off. Gaz., 9th Suppl., 232),an employee of the Bureau of Posts who died by electrocution, as the lines which he was repairing came into contact with those of the Manila Electric, was held to be guilty of gross negligence, he having been previously warned that the service of electric light had been reestablished and that he should, therefore be careful in handling the wires. The same conclusion was reached in De la Cruz vs. Hijos de I. de la Rama and Co. (62 Phil., 653), involving a truck driver who died, because his truck fell into a ditch in consequence of a false manuever he made to avoid collision with another car which unexpectedly appeared on the road, while he was driving on the wrong side of the highway, at a speed of 40 to 50 km. an hour.
To the same effect was the decision in Jahara vs. Mindanao Lumber Co. (57 Phil., 853), referring to a laborer who was run over by a car, as he fell therefrom, when he tried to board it while moving backward. Similarly, the death of a carpenter as he slipped from the roof of a building he was repairing was blamed on his gross negligence in Caunan vs. Compania General de Tabacos (56 Phil., 542,545), he having worn rubber shoes despite the fact that the roof was wet.
The case of Reyes vs. The City of Manila (G. R. No. 29112, July 18, 1933) referred to a watchman assigned to a road-roller, who sat on a piece of board one end of which was over a box placed on the hind wheels of the road-roller and the other end over a box of tools on the same rollert two meters above the ground. As he tried to drive away the mosquitoes and flying ants which bothered him, the board slipped off the wheel of the roller. So, he fell to the ground and his knee and left pelvis bumped against the cement sidewalk, sustaining physical injuries as a consequence thereof. It was held that he had been grossly negligent in seating on the piece of board which was precariously placed and in making motions for the purpose of driving away the mosquitoes and flying ants. Again in Guilas vs. The Province of Pampanga (G. R. No. 37744, July 21, 1933), a laborer on board a truck who stood up as it was approaching a curve and fell over when the vehicle turned the curved, was held guilty of gross negligence.
Home
