Random Thoughts

Anything under the sun


Leave a comment

Of ‘Torts and Damages’ and Love: ‘Violenti non fit injuria’

While reading Torts and Damages cases for our class tomorrow, a thought came up:
In torts law, one of the principles, and defenses against liability for damages, is “violenti non fit injuria” — to one who is willing, there can be no injury. It means that a person, who voluntarily exposed him/herself to a known risk or danger, must abide by the consequences and cannot be entitled to damages should he/she thereafter suffer injury or damage therefrom (Ilocos Norte Electric Co. v. CAG.R. No. L-53401, November 6, 1989).

Just like LOVE. Yes. Love. With emphasis to “love” in romantic relationships. When we love, we assume the risk of getting hurt or getting rejected. We all know those risks yet we pursue the person or the relationship. Thus, if, at the end of the day, we end up getting hurt in loving someone, we cannot just cry foul and blame that person or God or the concept of love itself. Violenti non fit injuria. To one who is willing to love, he/she must bear the consequences.

So, should we stop loving then? Should I stop going to law school which might not love me back? Definitely not! 😀 The principle only reminds us that we be careful so that we will not end up hurting ourselves too much. Despite the uncertainties and risks in life, just keep loving until we find “the right one”. As the line in a movie goes, “As long as you love, there is hope.” 😀

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Bloggers equally protected as journalists

But outside the definition of who a journalist is, the actual distinction between a regular media outfit and bloggers is the existence of a hierarchy of editorial controls to ensure accuracy in the news and fairness in commentary. This is why traditional journalists themselves sometimes scoff at the notion that “just about anyone can be a journalist”. In fact, Philippine jurisprudence even distinguishes between the amount of latitude given to the media in making factual errors depending on whether it is a “weekly” or a “daily”, with the latter being given wider latitude for mistakes.

But all these miss the point. There is protection accorded by the bill of rights not just to freedom of the press, but to freedom of expression in general. The normative values of these two freedoms are identical: to discern the truth and to facilitate “open, robust and even virulent discussion of pubic issues”. If both freedoms have the same normative content, why should the courts distinguish between an input to the market place of ideas coming from one who earns a living by it and one who does so anyway as a public duty?

Reblogged from HarryRoque.com. Read more at: http://verafiles.org/bloggers-equally-protected-as-journalists/#sthash.puf4oLw8.dpuf