Leftists blame GLORIA for Ultra Stampede

[websniper]

---

They were just riding on and for publicity purposes. They don't have other issues aside from Ultra Stampede to be thrown on Arroyo goverment at this time. "Nakisakay nalang"

[Minuano27]

again where in the law is this "proximate cause" written?

"proximate cause" is actually a legal principle and it's found in the Civil Code. in legal parlance, it has been defined by the supreme court as -

... "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."

put otherwise, if a person does something which an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person could reasonably expect could cause damage or injury to another, then as long as the person's act is connected through a natural and continuous chain of events to the direct act/incident which caused the injury or damage, then that person can be held liable.

[FK]

@Minuano27:

thanks a lot...

was there a person who was convicted with this case?

"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."

Pero I think it would be difficult to pin Willie on this one...

[Minuano27]

@fk - your'e welcome...)

yup...people have been convicted on this one. this principle usually comes up in reckless imprudence cases, usually traffic accidents leading to death or injury. for example, if you're speeding at 80kph in a school zone where the speed limit is only 20kph, and you hit a student, then you can be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide; if it's proved that you were running at 80kph, then you'll get convicted. this principle also applies in civil cases for damages resulting from the same example, although in this civil case, the issue will be damages.

as for willie, well, right now it looks to me like no. however, the organizers could be held liable since they are responsible for the show, and thus, in a position to determine whether or not there is a reasonable ground to expect that injury would result. so far, that seems to be the case bec. they publicly said that they expected 30k people to show up at a venue that holds only 9K inside and 8K outside. so the question is, did they anticipate the problem of crowd control and what did they do to ensure that this crowd control was in place so that no injury would occur? of course, the final outcome depends on the result of the fact-finding investigation being conducted.

[FK]

so a proximate cause is just a legal term? am i correct?

as for willie, well, right now it looks to me like no. however, the organizers could be held liable since they are responsible for the show, and thus, in a position to determine whether or not there is a reasonable ground to expect that injury would result. so far, that seems to be the case bec. they publicly said that they expected 30k people to show up at a venue that holds only 9K inside and 8K outside. so the question is, did they anticipate the problem of crowd control and what did they do to ensure that this crowd control was in place so that no injury would occur? of course, the final outcome depends on the result of the fact-finding investigation being conducted.

i agree... that's why I found the DOJ interpretation of it as way off, just like the Gabriella.

[LytSlpr]

who interpreted what? nobody! they just said that NOBODY is off the hook just yet including the host. nobody collectively said that they (ABS-CBN) are all liable.

[slakker]

As for Revillame, Gonzalez said it did not help that the show’s organizers had admitted that the comedian had taken the “responsibility of getting the prizes, the sponsors, etc.� for the show.

“He may still have (a liability) because there is a wide application of the principle of proximate cause. What is the proximate cause of the stampede? It was because there was a show like that … and eventually the prizes,� he said.

how do you interpret this sentence? a brilliant one? Is their a part of the law in our land that tells about it?

i think the key word in the justice secretary's quote is "MAY". "He MAY still have (a liability) because...."

[Minuano27]

so a proximate cause is just a legal term? am i correct?

nope...it's not just a legal term, it's a legal principle. this principle is something that's used to decide a case. like "proximate cause", it's a principle that's in the civil code that's used to determine if a person can be held civilly or criminally liable for an act.

as for the DOJ, he's actually correct bec. he stated the general principles of liability that can apply to the stampede. the problem is, gonzales' way of saying things gives the impression that what he said is "it". lawyers can understand what he's saying, but he forgets that he's actually talking to the general public and not to lawyers, so he should say what he wants in a way that can be understood by all.....

[monrose29]

hmm lisoda ani nga case.... so it would be like this..

Wellie Revillame vs The People of the Philippines.

ka malas ni willie bisan to-od sa iyang mga past behaviors the way nga mag host sya sa una nga medyo bastos.. but sa wowowe carefull na ka ayo sya sa iyang mga action... i think hes on hes way to change hes image on the public..
but gi dimalas pa jud..

pero pede man kaha maka pyansa ani nga case nohh... mang hina-ot lang ta nga di ka ayo pasabra-an og sakay nes mga politiko neng kasoha.. ..

[FK]

as for the DOJ, he's actually correct bec. he stated the general principles of liability that can apply to the stampede. the problem is, gonzales' way of saying things gives the impression that what he said is "it". lawyers can understand what he's saying, but he forgets that he's actually talking to the general public and not to lawyers, so he should say what he wants in a way that can be understood by all.....

maybe... that's why i misunderstood him.
but the way i understand proximate cause it like you disregard the clear danger that you know what might happen... like ignoring the opened manhole, a damage waiting shed that might collapse. That's a good example for a proximate cause right? But soliciting to establishment to be awarded as prizes? mura lagpas ra kaau.