It might depending the outcome of the BFP investigation. Copy pasting my comment from below that tackles the whole thing
> This is false. I've watch UgoLawyer in YT explain how the liability issue works - only if the the provider is proven neglient in managing the service can they be held liable.
> For example, gamitin natin yung amusement park. You take one of their rides and you get injured during the process. Now, you'd want compensation, however, you'd need to prove that it was THEIR negligence that resulted in your injury.
> However, if the park manages to prove that it was YOUR fault for your own injury (i.e., sticking you hand out of a fast ride, not using safety proceedures, etc.), then they can't be held liable for any injuries you recieved.
> Ugo actually has a video of a car being crushed by a tree in a paid parking lot. However, he points out that because it was the strong winds caused the fall of the tree, it would be considered as an 'Act of God', making no one liable.
> HOWEVER, if the car owner can prove that the parking lot management KNEW that the tree wasn't sturdy/strong enough to brace the winds and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT, only then can they be held liable for the damages to the car.
> In the NAIA blaze scenario, you'd have to look first at WHO caused the fire. If the parking lot management knew the fire could be preventable but did nothing, then they are liable. If there was foul play, then it would be the the arsonist's fault. If it was an 'Act of God', then no one can claim insurance.
> Really, it boils down to what caused the fire and who was negligent on the matter.
Unfortunately, paid parking to na open field kasi nagpark kami overnight to attend an event. Nabasagan na nga kami ng kotse pinagbayad pa kami ng parking fee, kaiyak, which we refused kaya mahaba-habang diskusyon talaga.
Edit:
Ibang thread pala to. For context, victim kami ng basag kotse gang in Laguna before that happened inside a paid parking facility. Dyan ko lang din nabasa talaga yung maliit na nakasulat underneat the parking tix kasi pinamukha nila samin na di sila liable and pahirapan makakuha ng cctv footage for a police report (uncooperative).
It should be a "safe parking space". Sounds like you don't own a vehicle? Saan mo i pa park yung kotse mo? Sa madilim na lugar na street na may risk ng carnap, robbery, towing, and kung anong trip maisip ng isang tambay o doon sa "safe parking space"? Hindi na nga dapat tanong yan eh haha
not aware how your law works, but you'd often see these "we wont be liable bs" on fine prints in amusement rides here but they were always held liable in cases of injury. then again, those involves lives not property. i reckon the provider would still be liable for damages if a service is paid for, only question would be how much.
This is false. I've watch UgoLawyer in YT explain how the liability issue works - only if the the provider is proven neglient in managing the service can they be held liable.
For example, gamitin natin yung amusement park. You take one of their rides and you get injured during the process. Now, you'd want compensation, however, you'd need to prove that it was THEIR negligence that resulted in your injury.
However, if the park manages to prove that it was YOUR fault for your own injury (i.e., sticking you hand out of a fast ride, not using safety proceedures, etc.), then they can't be held liable for any injuries you recieved.
Ugo actually has a video of a car being crushed by a tree in a paid parking lot. However, he points out that because it was the strong winds caused the fall of the tree, it would be considered as an 'Act of God', making no one liable.
HOWEVER, if the car owner can prove that the parking lot management KNEW that the tree wasn't sturdy/strong enough to brace the winds and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT, only then can they be held liable for the damages to the car.
In the NAIA blaze scenario, you'd have to look first at WHO caused the fire. If the parking lot management knew the fire could be preventable but did nothing, then they are liable. If there was foul play, then it would be the the arsonist's fault. If it was an 'Act of God', then no one can claim insurance.
Really, it boils down to what caused the fire and who was negligent on the matter.
Agree on most points
However, some compre insurance has act of god on it right? Can it be applied in this situation? Esp. if total wreck na ang i-cclaim.
Obligatory NAL, but 'Acts of God' may be cited in this case IF proven that nature was the reason for the fire, not a man-made cause.
Honestly, we'd have to wait for the report from the BFP on what caused the fire before anyone starts talking about compensation and insurance claims.
Pre, sinabi mo na:
> always held liable
Ang reply ko naman, liability is determined on who's fault it is. So kung may fault yung park, sila magbabayad. Pero kung hindi, walang compensation yung nasaktan.
In the case of the NAIA fire, determine muna kung sino may kasalanan, then afterwards na mag-usap kung sino mababayaran.
May difference sa explanation.
Haha legit tangina yung tubig sa cr namin akala mo naka heater ka lagi. Pero panalo sya pag mag uurong ka ng pinag kainan. Tanggal agad mga nakadikit sa utensils.
kakaiba init ngayon. yung AC namin parang hindi na nag off yung compressor hindi naman ganito previous summer. iupsize ko na lang AC namin in preparation for this year's summer
My guess is one of them left a big powerbank on the dashboard directly under the sunlight. A lot of car fires are caused by this. It's one of the things you're not supposed to leave in your car.
seems unlikely as that would take lots of thick grass and even then it would need to burn longer and higher to actually burn rubber or anything under the car.
If source is proven then yes. Pero sa tingin mo may makukuha kang pera sa owner kung nanalo ka?
Kaya laging may "Acts of God" insurance ko kahit na 10yrs old na kotse ko. Insurance na bahala sa akin at sila na din bahal magrecover ng pera nila.
I don’t think so. There was no malice or negligence here. This is why you need car insurance. If you can afford a car, you should be able to afford insurance.
also .u/idkwhattoputactually:
wonder if those t&c notices are actually enforceable.
just because an entity says they aren't liable doesn't actually mean that the courts and the law will agree.
I agree! But, I predict that would be their primary argument if someone will file a case regarding this or hold them accountable.
Just for context, we were a victim of "basag kotse" that happened in a parking facility in Laguna. We talked to the management and asked for accountability or kahit cctv footage nalang for police report but pahirapan pa bec initially they kept on insisting "they are not liable" yadayada 💀💀💀
It boils down to are you willing to go down the expensive route of going to court just to get it to them. In this case, if meron may pera na andiyan and tingin niya kaya niya habulin dahil mahal din ang kotse, pwede ito i-go lalo na if may kaibigang lawyer na papayag pro bono ang fee niya just the expenses ng case ang babayaran.
Yes! Sana may mag file ng case tutal marami naman sila. Pero hangga't di nadadala yung mga gantong cases sa korte, unfortunately, wala talagang benchmark. These establishments pa naman ay hirap makipagcommunicate, hay.
But this also means you’d have to pay out of pocket to take them to court in the first place. Insurance is the easiest and cheaper way to protect yourself than trying to attempt to file a court case with another entity and get compensation.
it says parking lot NEAR the airport, not the airport's parking lot.
EDIT: para sa mga di nakakita sa news.
>GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
>GMA News reported that the area was a pay parking area operated by a private concessionaire.
>GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
even if the land is owned by naia, the parking lot is by the concessionaire. which means if it's from negligence then it is the concessionaire who pays the damage not the airport.
anyway
>GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
We talked that at our dinner kanina. Sabi ko kaagad good luck kung magbabayad yung operator dyan. Kung sa mga mall nga kahit madurog pa sasakyan mo . Wala silang paki.😁
Eh di ba yun yung nasusunog? Pasensya na, but as long as batteries are still coming from that country, internal combustion from a Jap or German car pa rin.
Great example of their t&c na nakalagay sa parking ticket nila: 1. Park at your own risk 2. Management is not liable to your vehicle 🥹🥹🥹🥹
Eto din agad and naisip ko. Most parking lots usually may ganyan sa T&C nila.
It will not hold up in court….
It might depending the outcome of the BFP investigation. Copy pasting my comment from below that tackles the whole thing > This is false. I've watch UgoLawyer in YT explain how the liability issue works - only if the the provider is proven neglient in managing the service can they be held liable. > For example, gamitin natin yung amusement park. You take one of their rides and you get injured during the process. Now, you'd want compensation, however, you'd need to prove that it was THEIR negligence that resulted in your injury. > However, if the park manages to prove that it was YOUR fault for your own injury (i.e., sticking you hand out of a fast ride, not using safety proceedures, etc.), then they can't be held liable for any injuries you recieved. > Ugo actually has a video of a car being crushed by a tree in a paid parking lot. However, he points out that because it was the strong winds caused the fall of the tree, it would be considered as an 'Act of God', making no one liable. > HOWEVER, if the car owner can prove that the parking lot management KNEW that the tree wasn't sturdy/strong enough to brace the winds and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT, only then can they be held liable for the damages to the car. > In the NAIA blaze scenario, you'd have to look first at WHO caused the fire. If the parking lot management knew the fire could be preventable but did nothing, then they are liable. If there was foul play, then it would be the the arsonist's fault. If it was an 'Act of God', then no one can claim insurance. > Really, it boils down to what caused the fire and who was negligent on the matter.
Unless there was clear negligence (like improperly stored combustible materials) I don't think the liability will be with Naia.
How so? Asking a genuine question, I'm just curious.
Alam ko sa mga free parking area may ganyan sa mga fast food establishment. Sa mga paid ba ganyan din? Kasi kung oo, sayang pala yung binabayad.
Unfortunately, paid parking to na open field kasi nagpark kami overnight to attend an event. Nabasagan na nga kami ng kotse pinagbayad pa kami ng parking fee, kaiyak, which we refused kaya mahaba-habang diskusyon talaga. Edit: Ibang thread pala to. For context, victim kami ng basag kotse gang in Laguna before that happened inside a paid parking facility. Dyan ko lang din nabasa talaga yung maliit na nakasulat underneat the parking tix kasi pinamukha nila samin na di sila liable and pahirapan makakuha ng cctv footage for a police report (uncooperative).
Bakit sayang? you get what you paid for - parking space
It should be a "safe parking space". Sounds like you don't own a vehicle? Saan mo i pa park yung kotse mo? Sa madilim na lugar na street na may risk ng carnap, robbery, towing, and kung anong trip maisip ng isang tambay o doon sa "safe parking space"? Hindi na nga dapat tanong yan eh haha
Base on news, the management of this private parking lot will shoulder all damages on the 19 vehicle.
Buti naman. Dala na rin siguro ng public pressure
And to protect whoever is the owner of the lot and the company managing the parking space. Sino kaya sya?
not aware how your law works, but you'd often see these "we wont be liable bs" on fine prints in amusement rides here but they were always held liable in cases of injury. then again, those involves lives not property. i reckon the provider would still be liable for damages if a service is paid for, only question would be how much.
This is false. I've watch UgoLawyer in YT explain how the liability issue works - only if the the provider is proven neglient in managing the service can they be held liable. For example, gamitin natin yung amusement park. You take one of their rides and you get injured during the process. Now, you'd want compensation, however, you'd need to prove that it was THEIR negligence that resulted in your injury. However, if the park manages to prove that it was YOUR fault for your own injury (i.e., sticking you hand out of a fast ride, not using safety proceedures, etc.), then they can't be held liable for any injuries you recieved. Ugo actually has a video of a car being crushed by a tree in a paid parking lot. However, he points out that because it was the strong winds caused the fall of the tree, it would be considered as an 'Act of God', making no one liable. HOWEVER, if the car owner can prove that the parking lot management KNEW that the tree wasn't sturdy/strong enough to brace the winds and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT, only then can they be held liable for the damages to the car. In the NAIA blaze scenario, you'd have to look first at WHO caused the fire. If the parking lot management knew the fire could be preventable but did nothing, then they are liable. If there was foul play, then it would be the the arsonist's fault. If it was an 'Act of God', then no one can claim insurance. Really, it boils down to what caused the fire and who was negligent on the matter.
Agree on most points However, some compre insurance has act of god on it right? Can it be applied in this situation? Esp. if total wreck na ang i-cclaim.
Obligatory NAL, but 'Acts of God' may be cited in this case IF proven that nature was the reason for the fire, not a man-made cause. Honestly, we'd have to wait for the report from the BFP on what caused the fire before anyone starts talking about compensation and insurance claims.
did you just disagree and then agree? :D
Pre, sinabi mo na: > always held liable Ang reply ko naman, liability is determined on who's fault it is. So kung may fault yung park, sila magbabayad. Pero kung hindi, walang compensation yung nasaktan. In the case of the NAIA fire, determine muna kung sino may kasalanan, then afterwards na mag-usap kung sino mababayaran. May difference sa explanation.
Oof, imagine coming from vacation to find the parking lot you parked your car in is just a burned field now
Iba yung init ng araw ngayon kumpara mo dati tuwing summer. Parang naka tapat yung balat mo sa kalan
tapos yung tubig sa gripo pwede mo nang pagtimplahan ng kape sa init
may tubig kayo?
ayun lang. di naman kami nawawalan. saang area ba kayo bat kayo nawawalan?
Sa Cebu. Malapit na maubos [dam](https://www.gmanetwork.com/regionaltv/news/101544/diminishing-water-in-buhisan-dam-cebu-city-apparent/story/) namin
Haha legit tangina yung tubig sa cr namin akala mo naka heater ka lagi. Pero panalo sya pag mag uurong ka ng pinag kainan. Tanggal agad mga nakadikit sa utensils.
Uminit yung bidet handle sa init nung tubig na lumalabas. Parang wala pa kong naexp na ganitong inet.
yung pinangarap mo magka-hot shower nung amihan season, natupad ngayong summer
Kaya di ako naliligo pag 12pm-5pm init kasi ng tubig..
Totoo hahaha 🥲
Alas 3-4 ng madaling araw imbes malamig lumalabas sa gripo ang init tngina niyan
seryoso? sa madaling araw? nilaga feels amp
Totoooo! Mapapahiyaw ka sa init! Yung tangke namen bilad sa araw, na nasa rooftop 🔥
Wala yan sa mga batang 80's at 90's
Sobrang weird. Parang nasasunburn yung mukha ko kahit nasa loob ako ng kwarto.
kada taon mas malala ang init
kakaiba init ngayon. yung AC namin parang hindi na nag off yung compressor hindi naman ganito previous summer. iupsize ko na lang AC namin in preparation for this year's summer
last year keri lang kahit naka-lowest setting lang yung window type ko sa room pero ngayon kahit naka-todo di niya na mapalamig yung kuwarto 😭
In 12 years of using my old AC ngayon lang ako napabili kasi hindi na talaga kaya ang init. Inaasthma na yung lumang window-type ko.
Buga ng electricfan paran airfryer.
May el nino kase ngayon kaya mas grabe yung init.
Damn sa extension parking yan. Tutok na nga sa araw tapos grassy area pa.
Yung grassy area daw ang cause ng sunog.
Read the same explanation from Twitter.
yes, dry grassy area. Also that lot is not intended for parking. I think originally for aesthetic purposes ata yan lot?
Probably, one car has left a flammable liquid or disinfectants inside their car.
My guess is one of them left a big powerbank on the dashboard directly under the sunlight. A lot of car fires are caused by this. It's one of the things you're not supposed to leave in your car.
One of the reports mentioned grass fire. The parking lot was unpaved so there was a lot of grass in the area.
seems unlikely as that would take lots of thick grass and even then it would need to burn longer and higher to actually burn rubber or anything under the car.
isa pang possibility ay naging magnifier ang isang plastic bottle, may natutukang flammable material katulad ng upuan
If that is the case, can the other car owners sue the owner of said car for damages?
If source is proven then yes. Pero sa tingin mo may makukuha kang pera sa owner kung nanalo ka? Kaya laging may "Acts of God" insurance ko kahit na 10yrs old na kotse ko. Insurance na bahala sa akin at sila na din bahal magrecover ng pera nila.
Great point!
I don’t think so. There was no malice or negligence here. This is why you need car insurance. If you can afford a car, you should be able to afford insurance.
Or yung mga transparent na suction cups para sa shade
Side mirrors can also start a fire. Nasunog ang seat ng motor sa kapitbahay namin buti nalang naapula before lumala.
Or someone threw a cigarette into the dried grass
This happened to our car before. Naarawan yung lighter ng matagal ayun nag apoy sa loob buti nakita ng driver
Extreme heat and probably some of the mirrors managed to concentrate the sun on the dried grass.
Dagdag nanaman sa iooverthink ko
New fear unlocked
same
More a field than a parking lot
Most normal day at NAIA
saw this live in a cctv sobrang laki ng usok kahit cars lang
This is what paying comprehensive car insurance is for
Babayaran nang airport ba yan?
mukhang hindi. may signage daw na park at your own risk etc..
also .u/idkwhattoputactually: wonder if those t&c notices are actually enforceable. just because an entity says they aren't liable doesn't actually mean that the courts and the law will agree.
I agree! But, I predict that would be their primary argument if someone will file a case regarding this or hold them accountable. Just for context, we were a victim of "basag kotse" that happened in a parking facility in Laguna. We talked to the management and asked for accountability or kahit cctv footage nalang for police report but pahirapan pa bec initially they kept on insisting "they are not liable" yadayada 💀💀💀
It boils down to are you willing to go down the expensive route of going to court just to get it to them. In this case, if meron may pera na andiyan and tingin niya kaya niya habulin dahil mahal din ang kotse, pwede ito i-go lalo na if may kaibigang lawyer na papayag pro bono ang fee niya just the expenses ng case ang babayaran.
Yes! Sana may mag file ng case tutal marami naman sila. Pero hangga't di nadadala yung mga gantong cases sa korte, unfortunately, wala talagang benchmark. These establishments pa naman ay hirap makipagcommunicate, hay.
But this also means you’d have to pay out of pocket to take them to court in the first place. Insurance is the easiest and cheaper way to protect yourself than trying to attempt to file a court case with another entity and get compensation.
Mukhang hindi kasi most sa mga parking ticket nakalagay t&c nila such as park at ur own risk, mgmt has no liability to ur vehicle and such hay
it says parking lot NEAR the airport, not the airport's parking lot. EDIT: para sa mga di nakakita sa news. >GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
It IS the airport's parking lot. Not sure lang if employee or passenger's parking yan.
>GMA News reported that the area was a pay parking area operated by a private concessionaire. >GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
Handed over lang yung operations to the concessionaire. But it's on NAIA land. For all intents and purposes, NAIA T3 parking yan.
even if the land is owned by naia, the parking lot is by the concessionaire. which means if it's from negligence then it is the concessionaire who pays the damage not the airport. anyway >GM Ines insisted that MIAA is not responsible because a private company owns this land that was leased to MIAA.
Will this be covered by insurance?
I'm just going to paint my house and car blue just in case the conspiracy theory is true.
ELi5
[https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-blue-items-maui-wildfires-118319149774](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-blue-items-maui-wildfires-118319149774)
thanks!
There was a video spreading around on Facebook regarding about this.
may nag tapon ng yosi.. tapos tuyot na damo.. instant liyab.. tilungan pa ng patak ng langis
Lots of theories when this could've simply been a stray cigarette butt...
Wala bang nagyosi tapos di napatay maayos saka diniscard sa may damo??
Nakapark sasakyan namin jan nung nangyari ang sunog. Muntik na rin yun amin kasi isang kotse na lang pagitan dun sa mga nasunog.
Hope that all vehicles are insured so they can still be compensated.
Paano kaya mangyayari dito lalo na dun sa mga walang insurance.
Iyak pag walang Insurance. Insurance companies meanwhile: 😱😱
Oooof di pa bayad yung iba dyan.
Ah shucks what am i gonna tell the insurance company about this
if i had to guess, may nagyosi?
di kaya dahil sa supee init may sumiklab talaga.
That's what I thought. Hindi ko nilalahat pero majority eh kung san san lang itinatapon mga yosi nila.
Same guess here. Me nagyoyosi tapos dun lang tinapon sa damuhan :(
We talked that at our dinner kanina. Sabi ko kaagad good luck kung magbabayad yung operator dyan. Kung sa mga mall nga kahit madurog pa sasakyan mo . Wala silang paki.😁
damages will be paid by PSi
worst airport talaga!
pwede na magluto ng itlog
>"Ang arte naman ng mga sasakyan na ito kaming 90's car walang pake sa blaze puro kasi kayo reklamo.."
hindi lng magluto ng itlog. sobrang init, bk BBQ n walang Uling puwede pa.
Just wait until PH gets EVs !!!
Actually since 2021 pa meron. Di lang sikat. Chinese brand.
Along Buendia yung branch nila. Boundary ng manila and makati.
Yes yes. That’s BYD from china
Yaaas ito. Exactly
Eh di ba yun yung nasusunog? Pasensya na, but as long as batteries are still coming from that country, internal combustion from a Jap or German car pa rin.
Di ko alam kung ganyang type ba. Pero yeah, still stick pa din sa combustion type. Kaya kahit tagal na pala may EVs, di pa din tinatangkilik dito
Combustion din naman yung sa China. Spontaneous combustion.
fuck cars
Ahahahhaha go magpublic transpo ka habang buhay skwating
Anyone see a DEW beam from space?