Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Pacis V Morales

    Uploaded by

    Kris Mercado
    Morales, the owner of a gun store, was found negligent when a customer's gun he had accepted for repair discharged and killed Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old boy in the store. Morales failed to ensure the gun was unloaded before storing it in a drawer, violating his duty as a gun store owner to take extraordinary precautions to prevent injury from dangerous weapons. While Morales was away, his employees brought out the loaded gun, which was then fired when Alfred handled it, causing his death. The court ruled Morales negligent for not properly securing the loaded firearm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pacis V Morales

    Uploaded by

    Kris Mercado
    64 views1 page
    Morales, the owner of a gun store, was found negligent when a customer's gun he had accepted for repair discharged and killed Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old boy in the store. Morales failed to ensure the gun was unloaded before storing it in a drawer, violating his duty as a gun store owner to take extraordinary precautions to prevent injury from dangerous weapons. While Morales was away, his employees brought out the loaded gun, which was then fired when Alfred handled it, causing his death. The court ruled Morales negligent for not properly securing the loaded firearm.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Pacis v Morales.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Morales, the owner of a gun store, was found negligent when a customer's gun he had accepted for repair discharged and killed Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old boy in the store. Morales failed to ensure the gun was unloaded before storing it in a drawer, violating his duty as a gun store owner to take extraordinary precautions to prevent injury from dangerous weapons. While Morales was away, his employees brought out the loaded gun, which was then fired when Alfred handled it, causing his death. The court ruled Morales negligent for not properly securing the loaded firearm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views1 page

    Pacis V Morales

    Uploaded by

    Kris Mercado
    Morales, the owner of a gun store, was found negligent when a customer's gun he had accepted for repair discharged and killed Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old boy in the store. Morales failed to ensure the gun was unloaded before storing it in a drawer, violating his duty as a gun store owner to take extraordinary precautions to prevent injury from dangerous weapons. While Morales was away, his employees brought out the loaded gun, which was then fired when Alfred handled it, causing his death. The court ruled Morales negligent for not properly securing the loaded firearm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PACIS v MORALES

    As a gun store owner, Morales is presumed to be knowledgeable about


    FACTS: firearms safety and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in
    Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis filed a civil case for damages against his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. Morales has
    Jerome Morales. Spouses Pacis are the parents of Alfred, 17 y.o. who died the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms
    in a shooting incident inside the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms
    (gun store) in Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the gun store. are not needed for ready access defensive use.

    Alfred died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault.
    was at gunstore. The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought Before accepting the defective gun for repair, Morales should have made
    in by a customer of the gun store for repair. The gun, was left by Morales in sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed,
    a drawer of a table located inside the gun store. Morales should never accept a firearm from another person, until the
    cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that the weapon is
    Morales as in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague, who was completely unloaded
    the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around. Jarnague
    entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys which included the key Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required
    to the drawer where the gun was kept. It appears that Matibag and of a good father of a family, much less the The bullet which killed Alfred was
    Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer and palced it in top of fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair.
    the table. Attacted by it, Alfred got hold of it. Matibag asked Alfred to return
    the gun. Alfred followed but it went off the bullet hitting Alfred.

    TC held Morales civilly liable for the death of Alftred under A2180 in relation
    to A2176, ruling that the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his
    death was partyl due to the negligence of Morales employee Matibag.
    CA reversed, ruling that there was no employee-employer relationship
    because Matibag was not under the control of Morales with respect to the
    means and methods in the performance of his worK, thus A2180 cannot
    apply. And even if Matibag was an employee, Morales still cannot be held
    civilly liable because there is no negligence can be attributed to Morales
    because he kept the gun.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Morales was negligent

    RULING: YES.
    Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and
    placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. For
    failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, Morales himself was negligent.

    A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or
    under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such
    as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control
    of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions
    to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or
    business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous
    weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

    Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the Policy on Firearms and Ammunition
    Dealership/Repair, a person who is in the business of purchasing and
    selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic security and safety
    requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership
    will be suspended or canceled.

    You might also like