Vda. DE BATACLAN vs. MEDINA

FACTS:

Medina is the owner and operator of a bus. This bus, on Sept. 13, 1952 around 2:00AM somewhere in Imus, Cavite, crashed and fell into a ditch. Apparently, its front tire burst, zig-zagged and turned turtle into the ditch. Bataclan was one of the 18 passengers. Most of the passengers were able to get out, but Bataclan and 3 others were trapped. It appears that the bus drivers and the passengers who already got out did not try to help Bataclan et al get out, instead, about 10 of the locals in the area came to their aid, they were carrying a burning torch for illumination, but then a fierce fire started and engulfed the bus and killed Bataclan et al. It appears that there was a gas leak from the bus and it caught fire from the torch the would-be rescuers were using.

The heirs of Bataclan sued Medina.

The trial court found that there was a breach of a contract of carriage where Medina undertook to take Bataclan to his destination safely. The trial court also found that there was negligence on the part of Medina since at the time of the blow-out, the bus was speeding. There is no question that under the circumstances, the defendant carrier is liable. The only question is to what degree. The trial court argued that Medina is only liable for the injuries suffered by Bataclan and not by his death, the proximate cause of which was the fire, which was not caused by Medina.

ISSUE: Whether or not it was the negligence of Medina, owner of the bus company, which was the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan.

HELD:

Yes. In this case, the proximate cause of the death was the overturning of the bus, because of the overturning, it leaked gas which is not unnatural or unexpected. The locals coming to the aid of the trapped passengers was most likely because the driver and the conductor went out looking for help. It is only natural that the would-be rescuers bring with them a torch because it was 2:30AM and the place was unlit. The fire could also be attributed to the bus driver and conductor because he should have known, from the circumstances, and because he should have been able to smell gasoline and therefore he should have warned the rescuers not to bring the torch. Said negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier come under the codal provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733, 1759 and 1763.

Proximate Cause – “‘that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.’ And more comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.’”

Keep your Promise PNOY: DAR must stick to the deadline for Hacienda Luisita Distribution

I write this blog entry just two days before the date set for the completion of the distribution of Hacienda Luisita to the farmer-beneficiaries. As of this writing, the pace of the distribution still seems very sluggish. Even today—at the eleventh hour—the government still seems determined not to meet its deadline.

It seems that every excuse has been offered: From fortuitous events such as Typhoon Santi which hit last year and to it not being the “end of the world”,^* should the deadline not be met, though we should already take this as an admission that the DAR is simply not up to the task of distributing the land.

Why is this date so important? Thats because that is the date when R.A. No. 9700, the CARPER law is set to “expire”. And by expire, I mean that all funding will cease since by then all the land was supposed to have been distributed.^** When this funding ceases, practically all the work left to do comes to a complete standstill. Its a situation of “finished-or-not-finished” all work will cease, or rather a case of statutorily granted funds being replaced with discretionary funds.  A possible remedy of course would be to pass a new law extending CARPER, but its highly unlikely given the current PDAF imbroglio in the senate which has effectively reduced the quorum in the Senate and kept whoever is left on their toes.

This date is also significant because it marks the President's commitment to land reform—it was one of Noynoy Aquino's campaign promises in the 2010 elections. A failure here would be a very personal one for Aquino.

Hacienda Luisita was a large landholding that once belonged to the Aquino Family—the family where the Philippines' current President belongs to. It is a land over which much blood has been spilled. In fact, a massacre and some related killings happened there in 2005. This was around the time that the Aquino-Cojuangcos were trying to implement a stock distribution option (SDO) with the farmers instead of physically handing over the land to them.

It was R.A. No. 9700, which was passed in 2009 which practically abolished the giving of stocks instead of land to the farmers. And HLI vs. Luisita Industrial Park Corporation which revoked the original Stock Distribution Plan. A highly credible conspiracy theory exists whereby it is claimed that President Aquino and the Aquino-Cojuangco clan are waging a secret vendetta against the Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, under whose administration R.A. No. 9700 was signed; and against Former Chief Justice Corona, under whose court HLI vs. Luisita was promulgated, which led to the Former Chief Justice's impeachment and the Former President's arrest.

It is with this political backdrop that we hope and wait that the President, through his Agency the Department of Agrarian Reform finally finish distributing the land to the farmer-beneficiaries in time for the June 30, 2014 deadline set under the CARPER law.

Update 7/21/14

The latest controversy regarding the DAP may involve this now-defunct CARPER Law.  According to an anonymous letter to the editor published by the Manila Times last July 19, 2014:

DAP and DAR

DAR made full page announcements in the leading dailies that notwithstanding the expiry of our Agrarian laws as of June 30, 2014. DAR still did not end because under Sec. 30.^*** “pending cases or proceedings” may still be continued. And so DAR made midnight notices of coverage by publication (not by personal service nor by registered mail as required) so as to cover more lands.

DAR says that it has enough savings and can therefore go on and acquire new lands. They better read the latest Supreme Court decision declaring the acts of Budget Secretary Abad and President Aquino as “unconstitutional” This is because they used or transferred “savings” to finance projects without the proper appropriation law. The court effectively went back to the old doctrine when a budget has not been used up for a certain purpose, the saving goes back to the government to be appropriated properly and not by the Executive branch which implemented projects. Without a new law how can there be an appropriation of savings? Cross-Border to the DAR? Equally illegal.

What this letter confirms is my fears that if the deadline wasn't met for the Hacienda Luisita distribution, it will most likely never be accomplished given the expiry of CARPER and that funds shall cease to be allocated to it from now on.

References:

Here is a piece in 2009 when CARPER still held much hope and promise:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/view/20090622-211874/CARPER-Latest-Chapter-in-Agri-Reform-Battle

The farmers are obviously displeased:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/615626/farmers-mark-end-of-carper-with-protests

Kris Aquino on fire and the target of hate:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/358403/news/nation/you-can-burn-me-anytime-you-want-kris-to-hacienda-luisita-farmers

*Hardly an excuse in any case.

*^* Section 21. Section 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00).

“Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act during the five (5)-year extension period.

x x x x”

***SECTION 30. Resolution of Cases. — Any case and/or proceeding involving the implementation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, which may remain pending on June 30, 2014 shall be allowed to proceed to its finality and be executed even beyond such date.

RAMOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 124354. December 29, 1999.

Ponente: Kapunan

FACTS:

Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgical procedure to remove stone from her gall bladder (cholecystectomy). They hired Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, to conduct the surgery at the De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Hosaka assured them that he would find a good anesthesiologist. But the operation did not go as planned, Dr. Hosaka arrived 3 hours late for the operation, Dra. Gutierrez, the anesthesiologist “botched” the administration of the anesthesia causing Erlinda to go into a coma and suffer brain damage. The botched operation was witnessed by Herminda Cruz, sister in law of Erlinda and Dean of College of Nursing of Capitol Medical Center.

The family of Ramos (petitioners) sued the hospital, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist for damages. The petitioners showed expert testimony showing that Erlinda's condition was caused by the anesthesiologist in not exercising reasonable care in “intubating” Erlinda. Eyewitnesses heard the anesthesiologist saying “Ang hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan.”

Diagnostic tests prior to surgery showed that Erlinda was robust and fit to undergo surgery.

The RTC held that the anesthesiologist ommitted to exercise due care in intubating the patient, the surgeon was remiss in his obligation to provide a “good anesthesiologist” and for arriving 3 hours late and the hospital is liable for the negligence of the doctors and for not cancelling the operation after the surgeon failed to arrive on time. The surgeon, anesthesiologist and the DLSMC were all held jointly and severally liable for damages to petitioners. The CA reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

ISSUES: Whether or not the private respondents were negligent and thereby caused the comatose condition of Ramos.

HELD:

Yes, private respondents were all negligent and are solidarily liable for the damages.

RATIO:

Res ipsa loquitur – a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation, where ordinarily in a medical malpractice case, the complaining party must present expert testimony to prove that the attending physician was negligent.

This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation, Erlinda Ramos already surrendered her person to the private respondents who had complete and exclusive control over her. Apart from the gallstone problem, she was neurologically sound and fit. Then, after the procedure, she was comatose and brain damaged—res ipsa loquitur!—the thing speaks for itself!

Negligence – Private respondents were not able to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate cause of her condition. One need not be an anesthesiologist in order to tell whether or not the intubation was a success. [res ipsa loquitur applies here]. The Supreme Court also found that the anesthesiologist only saw Erlinda for the first time on the day of the operation which indicates unfamiliarity with the patient and which is an act of negligence and irresponsibility.

The head surgeon, Dr. Hosaka was also negligent. He failed to exercise the proper authority as the “captain of the ship” in determining if the anesthesiologist observed the proper protocols. Also, because he was late, he did not have time to confer with the anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery.

The hospital failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in hiring and supervision of its doctors (Art. 2180). The hospital was negligent since they are the one in control of the hiring and firing of their “consultants”. While these consultants are not employees, hospitals still exert significant controls on the selection and termination of doctors who work there which is one of the hallmarks of an employer-employee reationship. Thus, the hospital was allocated a share in the liability.

Damages – temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing.

LRT vs. NAVIDAD

G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003

FACTS:

Navidad was drunk when he entered the boarding platform of the LRT. He got into an altercation with the SG Escartin. They had a fistfight and Navidad fell onto the tracks and was killed when a train came and ran over him.

The Heirs of Navidad filed a complaint for damages against Escartin, the train driver, (Roman) the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization and Prudent Security Agency (Prudent). The trial court found Prudent and Escartin jointly and severally liable for damages to the heirs. The CA exonerated Prudent and instead held the LRTA and the train driver Romero jointly and severally liable as well as removing the award for compensatory damages and replacing it with nominal damages.

The reasoning of the CA was that a contract of carriage already existed between Navidad and LRTA (by virtue of his havA ing purchased train tickets and the liability was caused by the mere fact of Navidad's death after being hit by the train being managed by the LRTA and operated by Roman. The CA also blamed LRTA for not having presented expert evidence showing that the emergency brakes could not have stopped the train on time.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not LRTA and/or Roman is liable for the death.

(2) Whether or not Escartin and/or Prudent are liable.
(3) Whether or not nominal damages may coexist with compensatory damages.

HELD:

(1) Yes. The foundation of LRTA's liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arising from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier.

(2) Fault was not established. Liability will be based on Tort under Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code.
(3) No.  It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.

RATIO:

Liability of LRTA – Read Arts. 1755,1756, 1759 and 1763 of the New Civil Code

A common carrier is required by these above statutory provisions to use utmost diligence in carrying passengers with due regard for all circumstances. This obligation exists not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises where they ought to be in pursuance to then contract of carriage.

Art. 1763 renders a common carrier liable for death of or injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or (b) on account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through theexercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force majeure.

Liability of Security Agency – If Prudent is to be held liable, it would be for a tort under Art. 2176 in conjunction with Art. 2180. Once the fault of the employee Escartin is established, the employer, Prudent, would be held liable on the presumption that it did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Relationship between contractual and non-contractual breach – How then must the liability of the common carrier, on the one hand, and an independent contractor, on the other hand, be described? It would be solidary. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 of the Civil Code can well apply. In fine, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. Stated differently, when an act which constitutes a breach of ontract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.

Nominal Damages - The award of nominal damages in addition to actual damages is untenable. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. It is an established rule that nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory damages.  The award was deleted/\.

SOARING PRICES OF RICE

Photo Taken from Manila Standard Today

Manila Standard Today on the front page of its June 16, 2014 issue carries the story, Prices of rice, garlic, ginger rocketing. The reason: The supply s running out. According to a news report on DZBB 594, the main rice supply for Metro Manila comes from Central Luzon, specifically Nueva Ecija and, well simply, the rice suppliers just haven't been dumping [bagsakan] as much of the stuff as it would normally dump. According to the map below, its nowhere near harvest season anywhere in the Philippines so, as you would expect, the government's response will be to import the rice (as well as the garlic and ginger).

Photo Courtesy of IRRI

Philippines has never been self sufficient in rice in recent times. This is partly due to [or rather mostly due] to government's ineptitude in providing basic infrastructure and incentives for rice growers. One of my professors in college, the great Bernardo Villegas, since the 2000s has been complaining of the lack of farm to market roads and post-harvest drying facilities. Foreign travelers would remark that it is so quaint that Filipinos would continue to dry rice by the roadsides—the traditional way, they would say as a euphemism. But this is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Not only would the rice be at the mercy of wind and rain; foreign objects would also infiltrate the rice; pest could also get to it, but; more importantly, the moisture content would not have been sufficiently reduced leading to the faster spoilage of rice, preventing the accumulation of bumper crops and stockpiles for lean months such as today, let alone dry enough for international standards to be able to think of exporting it. Another government shortcoming would be land reform, and to be honest, I wouldn't know exactly what would happen if you gave farmers their land, they might just end up subsistence farmers, though with technology, the right seeds and irrigation, they might just create a surplus. Unfortunately, government is too engrossed with cash crops [read: capital intensive] such as sugarcane and fruits to think about its staples.

But let us not put all the blame on our wonderful and powerful government. Filipinos can also be especially wasteful and prodigal with their food. This wastage is well documented, I there are at least three studies that peg rice wastage at: P23million a day; P14.4million/day and; 3Tbsp/day per person. Imagine that. A lot of it goes to waste in the form of the hardened and browned rice stuck to the bottom of cauldrons and waste at fiestas, the Ilonggos have a particularly disturbing tradition of always leaving a little bit of rice on the plate, to show the host that you've had enough to eat. This problem has been so pernicious that lawmakers have decided to make it unlawful for restaurant owners to refuse to serve less than a full cup of rice, the reason being that a customer is less likely to waste half a cup of rice if that was what they got or asked for. So far, it hasn't been passed yet.

-o0o-

I've thought about brown rice. Makati City has made it into a campaign, trying to educate people as to the health benefits of brown rice—it is rich in fiber, vitamins, minerals and proteins and can also reduce cholesterol. However, it is also expensive, and this surprises me. Technically, brown rice is a “less processed” form of white rice, meaning that it undergoes fewer steps to become what it is, therefore, it should be cheaper. I think the main reason for its expense is branding. Brown rice can afford to be expensive because it is viewed as a health food and not as an everyday food. This is disheartening because I think it should be cheaper than white rice and if anything, it should be the “DFA” rice. I honestly believe that people would buy more of the stuff if it was cheaper and properly campaigned for. Some drawbacks: storage is trickier and it would use more fuel and time to cook, but there are ways around that.

PENULLAR vs. PNB

No. L-­32762. January 27, 1983.

TOPIC:  Torts, Negligence

FACTS:

There was a land registration case between Cristina Penullar and Florencio Felix for the declaration of absolute nullity of judicial proceedings in a land registration case. While the case was pending, the land was mortgaged to PNB for a loan by the defendants of the case for declaration of nullity of judicial proceedings.

The CA in that case declared the judicial proceedings void and all Certificates of Title flowing from the proceedings null and void, but at the same time declared the mortgage of PNB valid on the basis of being a mortgagor in good faith.

Penullar claimed that PNB was negligent in allowing the void title to be mortgaged.

ISSUE: Whether or not PNB was negligent

HELD:

NO. PNB had a right to rely on the torrens titles presented to it, furthermore, Petitioner Penullar was also found to have been negligent, to wit:

He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause damages shall, as between two innocent parties, bear the loss – “In the present case, [if herein petitioner] had appealed from the decision in the registration case, no certificate of Title would have been issued just like that in the name of the [petitioner] and no mortgage could have been constituted by them in favor of Bank but as it is, said [petitioner] failed to do that, instead they let the decision in the registration case gain the status of finality; allowed without prior protest, the certificate of title to be issued; did not even as early as possible, annotate an adverse claim on the titles; and they filed this case only several months afterwards, it was their negligence that permitted said adjudicatees in the said registration case to apply for and secure mortgages from the Bank.

CUSTODIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 116100. February 9, 1996

DOCTRINE:

The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

Damnum absque injuria – There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.

Article 21 – Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides the basis for the principle of abuse of rights. For there to be an abuse of rights, the following requisites must concur: (1) defendant acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; (2) The acts should be willful and; (3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff.

FACTS:

Private Respondent Mabasa wanted to establish an easement of right of way going into their property against petitioners who built an adobe wall in their properties which thereby restricted access to the Mabasa property. Petitioners claim that they built the wall in order to protect their persons and their property from their intrusive neighbors. The Trial Court nonetheless ordered that an easement be created.

Not satisfied, Mabasa went to the Court of Appeals which modified the decision of the trial court by awarding actual damages (p65,000.00), moral damages (p30,000.00) and exemplary damages (p10,000.00). Hence this petition. Damages were based on the fact of loss in the form of unrealized rentals on the property due to the adobe wall restricting access.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in awarding damages.

HELD:

Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, the award for damages has no legal basis. The mere fact of loss does not give rise to a right to recover damages. There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by defendant and a damage to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Damages are merely a part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

An injury is an illegal invasion of a legal right, any loss, hurt and harm resulting from the injury is damage. Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. In this case, the petitioners merely constructed an adobe wall which was in keeping with and is a valid exercise of their rights as the owner of their respective properties—i.e. there was no abuse of right as provided for in Article 21 of the New Civil Code and where the following requisites must concur: (1) defendant acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; (2) The acts should be willful and; (3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff. None of these requisites was present in this case.

The loss was therefore not a result of a violation of a legal duty. Instances where the damage was not a result of an injury is called damnum absque injuria and the plaintiff is not normally given an award for damages.

In other words, in order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only hurtful, but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria.

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA vs. HARPER

G.R. No. 189998. August 29, 2012

PONENTE: Bersamin

DOCTRINE:

Negligence – Article 2176 0f the New Civil Code provides “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business (Arts 2000-2001 New Civil Code).

Hotel owner is liable for civil damages to surviving heirs of hotel guest whom strangers murder inside his hotel room.

FACTS:

Christian Harper was a Norweigian who came to Manila on a business trip. He stayed at Makati Shangri-la Hotel, but he was murdered in his hotel room [Specifically Room 1428. His ghost can be found there].

It was found that the muderer, a caucasian male, was able to trespass into the hotel room of the victim and was then able to murder and rob the victim. The heirs of the victim blame the hotel's gross negligence in providing the most basic security system of its guests.

The RTC held in favor of the heirs and ordered Shangri-la to pay damages. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: WON Shangri-la Hotel is liable for damages.

HELD:

Yes. Shangri-la is liable due to its own negligence.

The testimony revealed that the management practice of the hotel prior to the death of the victim was to deploy only one security or roving guard for every three or four floors of the hotel, which is inadequate because the hotel is L-shaped that rendered hallways not visible end to end. That there was a recommendation to increase security to one guard per floor but this was not followed. This ommission is critical. The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business.

Therefore, the hotel has a greater degree of care and responsibility for its guests , otherwise the hotelkeepers would just stand idly by while strangers have unrestricted access to all hotel rooms on the pretense of being visitors of the guests which is absurd.

Note: The decision of the CA was reproduced in the decision to which the SC concurred. The CA discussed the test of negligence as:

“The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or ommission of the tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is similarly situated. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether or not [Shangri-la Hotel], under the attendant circumstances, used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation.”

BACK TO SCHOOL

Classes have opened again, which means I'll be too busy to write my usual blogs.  But it also means that I'll be uploading case digests and possibly notes.  This semester, I'll be uploading a lot of Torts related cases.  So there.  Enjoy!