- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 2185
- Topic
- Statutory provision
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE XVII EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 2 Quasi-delicts
- Year
- 1930
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
Unless there is proof to the contrary, a driver is presumed to have been negligent if he was violating any traffic regulation at the moment of the accident. This presumption effectively shifts onto the driver the burden of showing he was not at fault.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Rcj Bus Lines v. Standard Insurance Company, the Supreme Court held: Denied the petition, holding the registered bus owner vicariously liable under Article 2180 for its driver's negligence, which was presumed under Article 2185 due to a traffic violation, and upholding the insurer's subrogation rights under Article 2207 after payment of the claim.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Rcj Bus Lines v. Standard Insurance Company G.R. No. 193629
- Flordeliza Mendoza v. Mutya Soriano G.R. No. 164012
- Stephen Cang v. Herminia Cullen G.R. No. 163078
- Fgu Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation G.R. No. 141910
- Alfredo Mallari Sr. v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 128607
- Visitacion R. Rebultan v. Spouses Edmundo Daganta G.R. No. 197908