I was hit by a negligent driver and suffered complications no one could have predicted — is the driver still liable for those unforeseen consequences?

Liability reaches the natural and probable consequences

When harm comes from a crime or a quasi-delict, such as a negligent road accident, the law casts the net of liability wide. Article 2202 provides that the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. The focus is on the causal chain: whatever losses flow, in the natural and probable course of events, from the wrongful act are recoverable. The wrongdoer takes responsibility for the ordinary run of consequences his conduct sets in motion, not merely the most immediate or obvious injury.

Foreseeability is not required

The article then removes a defence a wrongdoer might hope to raise. It states that it is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. So a defendant cannot escape liability by arguing that a particular complication was surprising or unpredictable. If the damage is a natural and probable consequence of his act, he answers for it whether or not he, or anyone, saw it coming. This is a notably broader rule than the one that governs breaches of contract, where liability is generally tied to what was foreseeable.

The limit is causation, not foresight

This does not make a wrongdoer liable for everything that happens afterward. The damages must still be the natural and probable consequences of his act, which is a requirement of causation. A loss that is merely coincidental, or that flows from some independent cause rather than from the wrongful act, is not covered simply because it followed in time. What Article 2202 dispenses with is foreseeability, not the need for a genuine causal link. The victim must connect the harm to the defendant's conduct as a natural and probable result of it.

What this means for an injured victim

For someone hurt by another's negligence, the practical significance is real. Unexpected medical complications, a condition that worsens in ways doctors could not have predicted, or losses that unfold beyond the initial injury can still be laid at the negligent party's door, provided they trace naturally and probably from the accident. The victim should document how each consequence flowed from the wrongful act. Under Article 2202, the wrongdoer, not the innocent victim, bears the risk of consequences that could not have been foreseen.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Spouses Enrique Llonillo and Marites Llonillo vs. People of the Phillippines, G.R. No. 246787, January 30, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Davao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Representative By Maria Teresa M. David vs. Heirs of Victorino Lucas, G.R. No. 254395, June 14, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc, G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim vs. Spouses Leonora J. Gomez and Gabriel V. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →