Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the

interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance

which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.1
As illustrated in the case of Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals2,
where the child named Zhieneth was toppled over by the gift-wrapping
counter, whose shape was that of an inverted “L.” During the incident, her
mother, Criselda, was paying the cashier when Zenith took off from her hold
and went to the gift-wrapping counter. Jarco Marketing reiterated that the
resulting injury should not be attributed to them but to the negligence of the
mother. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Jarco Marketing, ruling
as to wit:

CRISELDA (mother) too, should be absolved from any contributory

negligence. Initially, ZHIENETH held on to CRISELDA's waist, later
to the latter's hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the child's hand
from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise
moment, it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to let go of her
child. Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the
counter, she was just a foot away from her mother; and the gift-
wrapping counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA. The
time and distance were both significant.

As alleged by the plaintiff, Jonna Bueno, in her testimony, it has been

a habit of her to be accompanied by her son while shopping for groceries

1
Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969.
2
G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999
especially when she has no one to leave the child home with. On the day of
the accident, the child, Ricky, was walking along the aisles with her. If there
would have been a momentary period where the child walked ahead or
behind his mother, it would have not been a significant distance that would
connote a form of abandonment by the mother. She would have been only a
few feet away from the child and cannot be held to be negligent in looking
after her child.

The defendant, as alleged in their cross-examination of the plaintiff

mother, would have us believe that the since the supermarket did not have
a ‘leave-your-child’ service, it was implied then in the supermarket’s policy
that when a child comes with his/her parents to the supermarket, the
responsibility for looking after the child is primarily in the hands of the
parent or the legal guardian.

Similarly, in the recent case of Taggart v. Heuchert3, it was reiterated

that:

An error of judgment standing alone does not prove negligence if the

parent’s actions are those a reasonably careful parent might have
taken, viewed by the standard of care generally accepted in the
community. The standard of care is not one of perfection. It does not
require a parent to take every possible step to ensure the safety of the
child. It includes both an objective and subjective aspect. The objective
aspect requires determination of the community standard at the time
generally expected of a reasonably prudent parent. The subjective
aspect places the reasonably prudent parent in circumstances identical
3
Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2013 BSC 1248, July 12, 2013.
 to those [the parent] faced at the time, and knowing only what [they]
believed and understood.

At the time of the accident, the mother was indeed shopping for
groceries and the defendant alleged that because of that error in judgment,
she was negligent when she let her child slip away from her control, and
when she allowed the child to ran after the ball.

In the present case, that cannot be tantamount to negligence in looking

after her child. The standard of care is not of perfection and does not require
the parent to take every possible step to ensure the safety of the child. The
mother could not be expected to keep a watchful and unwavering eye over
her son for the duration of her stay in the supermarket. If that were to be the
case, that a parent should always walk hand-in -and with his/her child, how
can one possibly finish shopping?

Even assuming that the mother was neglectful, it cannot be considered

as the proximate case of the injury sustained by the child. Proximate cause
is defined as that cause which, in natural or continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient cause produces the injury and without which the result
would not have occurred.4

The proximate cause of the child, Ricky’s, injuries was the puddle of
syrup on the floor which caused him to slide. In the maintenance and

4 Ramos vs. C.O.L Realty Corp. G.R. No. 184905, Aug. 28, 2009.
observance of cleanliness of the supermarket premises, that responsibility
solely rests on the owners and managers therefore of the establishment.
As stated in National Power Corp. vs. Heirs of Noble Casionan,
contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below
the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection.5 There
is contributory negligence when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care
and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.6
It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the
person injured which, concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the
proximate cause of the injury.7

The classic restatement of the relevant legal principles regarding

contributory negligence was made by O’Byrne in Fleming v. Kerry County
Council.8 In the case of a child of tender years, there must be some age up to
which the child cannot be guilty of contributory negligence and cannot be
expected to take any precautions for his own safety. In the case of an adult
person, the standard is what should be expected from a reasonable person.
In the case of child, the standard is what may reasonably be expected, having
regard to the age and mental development of the child and the other
circumstances of the case.

5 Estacion v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, February 27, 2006.

6 Ibid.
7 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83491. August 27, 1990.|.
8 The Irish Jurist Reports of Cases Heard and Decided by Several Courts of Justice in Ireland for the years

1955 and 1956

 Hence, a child can generally be responsible for the consequences of
his/her wrongful acts. However, the degree of reasonable care required of a
child depends on the age of the child and the standard and the standard of
care normally expected of a child of that age. A restatement from the book
of Judge Cezar S. Sangco on Philippine Torts and Damages, Vol. 19 wherein
it is described that a young child may be aware of what he or she is doing
and even know that the action is wrong, but still incapable of foreseeing its
consequences and will therefore not have acted negligently. The capacity of
the child must be considered and decided in each case. A child closer to
adulthood will be expected to observe a standard of care that will resemble
that required of an adult. A child who engages in an adult activity, such as,
driving a car, may be expected to meet the standard of care applicable to an
adult.
At the time of the accident, Ricky, was 5 years of age. Anent the
negligence of Ricky, we shall apply the conclusive presumption that favors
children below nine (9) years of age. In his book, Judge Cezar S. Sangco
stated:10
In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively
presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account,
exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like
exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over
nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted
with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict
and required discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or

9 1, Philippine Law on Torts and Damafes, p. 72 (1993).

10 Ibid. p. 70-71
 civil, a child under nine years of age is, by analogy, conclusively
presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of
lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child
over nine but under fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one, under our
law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of age must be
conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a
matter of law.

Another fact as alleged by the defendant’s witness, Mr. Castro, Ricky

bumped into the shelf containing the syrup bottles and knocked off the
bottles thus spilling the liquid on the the floor. This was not proven by the
witness since he did not actually see the child bump into the shelf. He merely
speculated the possibility, therefore, it cannot be said that Ricky’s accident
was due to his own contributory negligence.