Scribd
Upload
104 views1 page

.Afialda V. Hisole Case Digest

Loreto Afialda was employed as a caretaker of carabaos owned by the Hisole spouses. While tending to the animals, Afialda was gored by one of the carabaos and later died from his injuries. Afialda's elder sister sought to hold the Hisole spouses liable under Article 1905 of the Civil Code. However, the court ruled that the owners were not liable because the animal was in the custody and control of Afialda, the paid caretaker. As the caretaker, it was Afialda's job to prevent the animal from causing injury, including to himself. His injury was an assumed risk of his occupation.

Uploaded by

Kling King
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
104 views1 page

.Afialda V. Hisole Case Digest

Loreto Afialda was employed as a caretaker of carabaos owned by the Hisole spouses. While tending to the animals, Afialda was gored by one of the carabaos and later died from his injuries. Afialda's elder sister sought to hold the Hisole spouses liable under Article 1905 of the Civil Code. However, the court ruled that the owners were not liable because the animal was in the custody and control of Afialda, the paid caretaker. As the caretaker, it was Afialda's job to prevent the animal from causing injury, including to himself. His injury was an assumed risk of his occupation.

Uploaded by

Kling King
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
  • Afiada v. Hisole Case Digest: Summarizes the essential facts, legal issue, and judgment regarding the case between Afiada and Hisole, focusing on liability and consequences of animal handling.

.AFIALDA v.

HISOLE CASE DIGEST


FACTS: Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses Hisole as caretaker of their carabaos at a
fixed compensation. While tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and later died as a
consequence of his injuries.
Plaintiff (elder sister of deceased) seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code,
which reads:
The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if
such animal should escape from him or stray away.
This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who may have suffered it.
ISSUE: whether the owner of the animal is liable when damage is caused to its caretaker.
RULING: No. The animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work
as such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or
damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one
of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.

You might also like