Short answer. Yes. Article 2178 says the provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. A harmful accident caused by someone's fault or negligence, where no contract binds you, is a quasi-delict, so the same rules on negligence, fraud and fortuitous events that govern obligations apply to it too.
What the law says
The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict
Civil Code, Article 2178 — Rules on Fraud and Negligence Apply. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances
Civil Code, Article 1172 — Liability for Negligence. Read the full provision →
A bridge between contract rules and accidents
Article 2178 is a one-line bridge: The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. Articles 1172 to 1174 sit in the part of the Code about performing obligations; they deal with negligence, and with when a person is or is not answerable for a loss. Article 2178 takes those same standards and extends them to a quasi-delict, the legal name for harm caused outside of any contract. So the rules you associate with breach of an obligation are not confined to contracts; the law expressly carries them over to accidents that injure someone through fault or negligence.
An 'ordinary accident' is often a quasi-delict
To see why this answers your question, look at what a quasi-delict is. It is harm caused by a person's act or omission through fault or negligence, where there was no pre-existing contract between the parties. A road collision with a stranger, or damage caused by someone's carelessness to a person he had no agreement with, is the classic example. That is exactly the ordinary accident you have in mind. Because such an accident is a quasi-delict, Article 2178 tells us the negligence-and-liability standards of Articles 1172 to 1174 govern it, just as they would govern a failure to perform a contract.
What those borrowed rules bring
What do Articles 1172 to 1174 actually contribute? Article 1172 makes clear that Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. Carried into a quasi-delict, that means negligence gives rise to liability, and the courts have room to adjust it to the situation. The remaining provisions in the range supply the standard of diligence expected and, importantly, the rule on fortuitous events, losses from events that could not be foreseen or avoided. Applied to an accident, they shape both when a person is held liable and how much, and when a genuinely unavoidable event excuses him.
What this means in practice, and its limits
Practically, an accident of this kind is judged by the same yardsticks as a negligent breach: was there fault or negligence, and did it cause the harm? The court can temper the liability to fit the circumstances, and a defendant may raise that the loss came from a fortuitous event beyond his control. But note the boundaries. Article 2178 applies these rules to a quasi-delict, harm without a governing contract. If a contract did bind the parties, the claim is generally framed as a breach of that contract instead, and other rules come into play. And the law of quasi-delict still requires the basic elements: fault or negligence, damage, and a causal link between them.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2178 — Rules on Fraud and Negligence Apply
- Civil Code, Article 1172 — Liability for Negligence