LAW ON PROPERTY | HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. VS BALANDAN G.R. NO. L-3422, JUNE 13, 1952

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. VS BALANDAN

G.R. NO. L-3422, JUNE 13, 1952

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.

 

FACTS

Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. "was the owner of an ice-plant factory in the City of San Pablo, Laguna, in whose premises were installed two tanks full of water, nine feet deep, for cooling purposes of its engine. The factory was fenced; however, anyone could easily enter the factory because there was no guard assigned on the gate. The tanks were also not provided with any fence or covers.

Guillermo Bandalan and Anselma Anila’s son, Mario, barely eight years old, entered the factory’s premises through the gate to take a bath in one of the tanks and while thus bathing, Mario sank to the bottom of the tank, only to be fished out later, already a cadaver, having died of "asphyxia secondary to drowning."

The Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance decided in favor of the parents, Guillermo Balandan and Anselam Anila saying that Hidalgo Enterprises Inc maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks) and is liable for damages because it neglected to adopt the necessary precautions to avoid accident to person entering its premises.

 

ISSUE

Whether the tanks are attractive nuisance.

 

RULING

No.

The court ruled that the doctrine of attractive nuisance states that one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.

 







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147