In Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Intergames, the organizer of a marathon, was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures for participants, leading to the death of a minor runner. The court emphasized the heightened duty of care owed to minors and that the organizer’s negligence, not just the reckless jeepney driver, was the proximate cause of the tragedy. This decision underscores the responsibility of event organizers to protect participants, especially young ones, from foreseeable dangers.

Can a Marathon Organizer Be Held Liable for a Runner’s Death?

This case revolves around the tragic death of Rommel Abrogar, a minor participating in the “1st Pop Cola Junior Marathon.” Rommel was struck by a passenger jeepney during the race, leading his parents to sue Cosmos Bottling Company, the sponsor, and Intergames, Inc., the organizer, for damages. The central legal question is whether Intergames was negligent in its conduct of the marathon, and if so, whether this negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel’s death. This analysis delves into the legal principles of negligence, proximate cause, assumption of risk, and the duty of care owed to minors in the context of organized events.

The Supreme Court, in examining the facts, highlighted several critical failures on the part of Intergames. The Court emphasized that negligence is 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. As stated in the decision, “A careful review of the evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of the relevant witnesses, in accordance with the foregoing guidelines reasonably leads to the conclusion that the safety and precautionary measures undertaken by Intergames were short of the diligence demanded by the circumstances of persons, time and place under consideration. Hence, Intergames as the organizer was guilty of negligence.”

One key aspect of the Court’s reasoning focused on the suitability of the marathon route. Intergames chose a route that ran alongside moving vehicular traffic, despite knowing that it was not the only option. While Intergames argued that the police prohibited blocking the road, the Court pointed out that Intergames could have chosen a different location altogether. The Court stated that “Intergames came under no obligation to use such route especially considering that the participants, who were young and inexperienced runners, would be running alongside moving vehicles.” This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering all available options and prioritizing participant safety.

Beyond the route itself, the Court also scrutinized the adequacy of Intergames’ manpower and coordination efforts. Intergames relied heavily on volunteers from various agencies, but failed to provide them with adequate instruction and coordination. The Court said, “Verily, that the volunteers showed up and assumed their proper places or that they were sufficient in number was not really enough. It is worthy to stress that proper coordination in the context of the event did not consist in the mere presence of the volunteers, but included making sure that they had been properly instructed on their duties and tasks in order to ensure the safety of the young runners.” The Court emphasized that the organizer’s duty extends beyond simply deploying personnel; it includes ensuring they are properly trained and supervised.

The Court also addressed the issue of proximate cause, which is defined as “that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred.” Intergames argued that the jeepney driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel’s death. However, the Court disagreed, stating that Intergames’ negligence in failing to provide a safe race environment set the stage for the accident. In the words of the Court, “the negligence of Intergames was the proximate cause despite the intervening negligence of the jeepney driver.” The Court reasoned that Intergames’ failure to create a safe environment was the initial act that ultimately led to Rommel’s death.

Another point of contention was the doctrine of assumption of risk. The Court rejected the application of this doctrine, noting that Rommel, being a minor, could not fully appreciate the specific risk of being struck by a vehicle during the race. “Rommel could not have assumed the risk of death when he participated in the race because death was neither a known nor normal risk incident to running a race. Although he had surveyed the route prior to the race and should be presumed to know that he would be running the race alongside moving vehicular traffic, such knowledge of the general danger was not enough.” The Court’s reasoning underscores the heightened duty of care owed to minors, who may not possess the same level of understanding and judgment as adults.

The Court made it very clear that a higher degree of diligence was required in the case of the Pop Cola Junior Marathon because the participants were children or minors. “In that respect, Intergames did not observe the degree of care necessary as the organizer, rendering it liable for negligence. As the Court has emphasized in Corliss v. The Manila Railroad Company, where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.”

As for Cosmos Bottling Company, the sponsor of the event, the Court found that its role was limited to providing financial assistance. There was no evidence that Cosmos was involved in organizing the race or determining the route and safety measures. “In the absence of evidence showing that Cosmos had a hand in the organization of the race, and took part in the determination of the route for the race and the adoption of the action plan, including the safety and security measures for the benefit of the runners, we cannot but conclude that the requirement for the direct or immediate causal connection between the financial sponsorship of Cosmos and the death of Rommel simply did not exist.” As such, Cosmos was absolved from liability.

In terms of damages, the Court upheld the RTC’s award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages. It also added damages for loss of earning capacity, recognizing that even a non-working minor has the potential to earn. The Court explained that, “damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded to the heirs of a deceased non-working victim simply because earning capacity, not necessarily actual earning, may be lost.” The Court calculated Rommel’s net earning capacity based on his life expectancy and the minimum wage at the time of his death.

This landmark decision underscores the importance of event organizers prioritizing participant safety, especially when minors are involved. It also highlights the limits of the assumption of risk doctrine and the need for organizers to take proactive steps to mitigate foreseeable dangers. The ruling is a clear reminder that negligence in creating a safe environment can have devastating consequences and lead to legal liability. When planning an event, organizers should consider the following precautions:

• Conduct a thorough risk assessment
• Choose a safe location or route
• Implement adequate safety measures
• Provide clear instructions and supervision
• Secure appropriate insurance coverage

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the marathon organizer, Intergames, was negligent in its conduct of the race and if that negligence was the proximate cause of Rommel Abrogar’s death. The Court scrutinized the safety measures and planning undertaken by Intergames.
What is ‘proximate cause’ in legal terms?	Proximate cause is the primary cause that sets in motion a chain of events leading to an injury or damage. It is the direct cause without which the injury would not have occurred, not necessarily the closest event in time.
Why was Intergames found liable in this case?	Intergames was found liable because it failed to exercise the necessary diligence in ensuring the safety of the marathon participants. Specifically, Intergames chose a dangerous route and did not provide adequate supervision.
What is the ‘assumption of risk’ doctrine?	The assumption of risk doctrine implies that a person who voluntarily exposes themselves to a known danger assumes the risk of injury resulting from that danger. However, this doctrine has limitations, particularly when dealing with minors.
Why did the court reject the ‘assumption of risk’ defense in this case?	The court rejected the defense because Rommel Abrogar, being a minor, could not fully comprehend and voluntarily assume the risk of being hit by a vehicle during the race. The law recognizes a higher standard of care for minors.
What was the role of Cosmos Bottling Company in the marathon?	Cosmos Bottling Company was merely a financial sponsor of the marathon. The court found no evidence that Cosmos was involved in the actual organization or safety planning of the event.
What kind of damages were awarded to the petitioners?	The petitioners were awarded actual damages (medical and burial expenses), moral damages (for grief), exemplary damages (due to gross negligence), and damages for loss of earning capacity (even though Rommel was a minor). The total amount was to be determined with interest from the date of the lower court’s decision.
What is ‘gross negligence’ and why was it relevant in this case?	Gross negligence is a severe form of negligence that implies a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The court found that Intergames’ conduct constituted gross negligence, justifying the award of exemplary damages.
What is the key takeaway for event organizers from this case?	The key takeaway is that event organizers have a significant responsibility to ensure the safety of participants, especially minors. They must conduct risk assessments, implement appropriate safety measures, and provide adequate supervision to prevent foreseeable injuries.

In conclusion, the Abrogar v. Cosmos case serves as a powerful reminder of the legal and ethical obligations of event organizers to protect the safety and well-being of participants. By failing to prioritize safety, Intergames was held liable for the tragic consequences of its negligence. This case sets a precedent for holding event organizers accountable for foreseeable risks, particularly when vulnerable populations like minors are involved. As the Supreme Court decision demonstrates, the law demands a high standard of care, and those who fail to meet it will be held responsible.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc., G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017