Fun run

(Conclusion)

The negligence of Running Events Inc., despite the jeepney driver’s negligence, was considered to be the proximate cause of the death. The negligence of Running Events Inc. set the stage for the resulting injury. It could have been avoided if they acted with due diligence and had the race on a safer road with more efficient supervision.

The jeepney driver’s negligence may be considered intervening, but it was not considered an efficient intervening cause because it did not break the chain of connection between Running Events Inc.’s negligence and the resulting death. Running Events Inc. had the duty to guard Angelo against this foreseeable risk, but it was unable to do so.

Is the doctrine of assumption of risk applicable in Angelo’s case?

No. Angelo could not have assumed the risk because death was not a known or a normal risk of running a race. Even though he surveyed the route and presumably knew he would run alongside moving vehicles, the knowledge of the general danger cannot be considered to be enough. Angelo could not have appreciated the risk of being disastrously bumped by a jeepney while running the race. He had every reason to trust that the organizers took the necessary measures to protect participants from danger.

The Supreme Court went as far to say that nobody in their right mind, including minors, would join the race if they knew or appreciated the risk of harm or death from a vehicle while running in the event. A race route that is safe and free from such risks is a reasonable expectation of any runner in any organized run.

Should Sponsorships Company also be held liable?

No. Sponsorships Company, as the sponsor, was limited to financing the run. Absent any showing that they played a part in organizing the race and deciding on the route, including the safety measures, the Court cannot consider there to be a direct causal connection to Angelo’s death.

Sponsorships Company is absolved from liability; Running Events, Inc. was ordered to pay damages to the petitioners’ parents of Angelo. (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, 15 March 2017.)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]