Civil liability for property damage worth ₱400,000 in the Philippines is governed primarily by the Civil Code of the Philippines, but it may also arise from the Revised Penal Code, special laws, contracts, insurance arrangements, and procedural rules on civil actions. In Philippine law, “property damage” generally means injury, destruction, loss, impairment, or diminution in value of a thing owned, possessed, or legally controlled by another person. When the amount involved is ₱400,000, the claim is substantial enough to raise practical issues on proof, forum, recoverable damages, interest, settlement strategy, insurance subrogation, and the relationship between criminal and civil liability.

This topic is best understood by separating the source of liability, because the same damaged property may give rise to different legal causes of action depending on how the damage happened.

I. What civil liability means

Civil liability is the legal obligation to repair, reimburse, restore, or compensate for damage caused to another. In property-damage cases, the basic aim is not punishment but indemnification: to place the injured party, as nearly as money can do so, in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred.

In Philippine law, civil liability may arise from:

Law
Contracts
Quasi-contracts
Acts or omissions punished by law
Quasi-delicts

These are the recognized sources of obligations under the Civil Code.

For a ₱400,000 property-damage case, the claimant usually sues to recover:

Actual or compensatory damages
Possibly temperate damages
In proper cases, moral damages
In exceptional cases, exemplary damages
Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
Interest

II. Main legal bases in Philippine law

A. Quasi-delict under the Civil Code

The most common basis for civil liability for property damage is quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. This applies when a person, by fault or negligence, causes damage to another, and there is no pre-existing contractual relation governing the incident.

Examples:

A driver crashes into a parked vehicle
A contractor negligently causes structural damage to a neighboring building
A factory causes a fire that spreads to adjacent property
A person negligently floods a neighbor’s house or commercial space

Elements of quasi-delict

The claimant must generally prove:

Act or omission by the defendant
Fault or negligence
Damage suffered
Direct causal connection between the act/negligence and the damage

In a ₱400,000 property-damage claim, the claimant must not only prove that damage occurred, but also that the amount claimed corresponds to the actual loss.

B. Civil liability arising from a crime

If the property damage was caused through a criminal act, civil liability may arise from the offense itself. This can happen in cases such as:

Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
Malicious mischief
Arson
Certain forms of fraud or unlawful taking with resulting property loss

In criminal cases, the person accused may also be held civilly liable unless civil liability is waived, reserved, or separately instituted where allowed by procedural rules.

This means that if someone recklessly drives and causes ₱400,000 damage to another’s building or vehicle, there may be:

a criminal aspect for the negligent act, and
a civil aspect for the monetary compensation

C. Breach of contract

If the damage occurred because of a contractual relationship, the proper action may be based on breach of contract rather than quasi-delict.

Examples:

A warehouse operator damages stored goods
A mover destroys machinery during transport
A contractor damages owner-supplied materials
A repair shop causes additional damage to an entrusted vehicle

Here, the issue is not simply general negligence but the failure to comply with a contractual obligation with due care, proper workmanship, or agreed specifications.

D. Liability under special legal relationships

The Civil Code also imposes liability in particular circumstances, such as:

Liability of employers for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of assigned tasks
Liability of owners and managers of establishments
Liability of parents, guardians, or persons exercising authority in specific situations
Liability tied to defective buildings, dangerous objects, animals, or nuisance
Liability of possessors or owners for damage caused by things under their control

These are important in property-damage cases because the person who physically caused the damage is not always the only person who may be sued.

III. What counts as “property damage”

Property damage may involve:

Destruction of a house, building, room, fence, gate, wall, roof, machinery, equipment, inventory, or vehicle
Water damage, fire damage, electrical damage, impact damage, smoke damage, contamination, and similar forms of impairment
Diminution in value even if the property is not totally destroyed
Cost of restoring the property to its previous condition
Loss of materials, fixtures, furniture, or business assets

The claimant’s burden is to show:

that the property existed,
that the claimant had ownership or a legally protected interest in it,
that the defendant caused the damage,
and that the quantified loss is real and supported by evidence.

IV. Why the ₱400,000 amount matters

The amount matters because it affects:

the economic seriousness of the case,
the evidence needed to support the amount,
possible interest exposure,
litigation costs,
settlement value,
and the court that may hear the case, depending on the nature of the action and the procedural rules in force at the time of filing.

A property-damage claim of ₱400,000 is large enough that courts will expect meaningful documentary and testimonial proof, not rough estimates or unsupported assertions.

V. Civil liability from negligence: how fault is determined

Negligence is the failure to observe the care that a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Philippine courts look at foreseeability, control, precautions taken, industry practice, warnings ignored, condition of the premises or instrumentality involved, and whether the damage would likely have been avoided through ordinary care.

Examples of negligence leading to property damage

A truck driver ignoring traffic rules and damaging a storefront
A landlord neglecting faulty wiring that causes fire to a tenant’s property
A construction company failing to shore a wall, causing collapse into adjacent premises
An employee mishandling chemicals and damaging equipment or stock
A utility-related excavation breaking pipes and flooding nearby property

The fact of damage alone does not automatically prove negligence, but the surrounding circumstances may create strong inferences.

VI. Civil liability even without intent

Property damage does not require malicious intent for civil liability to arise. A person may be civilly liable even if:

the act was merely negligent,
the damage was unintended,
the defendant did not personally profit,
or the incident happened during lawful activity done carelessly

Intent may matter for criminal liability or exemplary damages, but lack of intent does not erase the duty to compensate for proven loss.

VII. Actual damages: the core remedy

In a ₱400,000 property-damage case, the primary claim is usually actual or compensatory damages.

These are awarded to reimburse proven pecuniary loss, such as:

repair costs
replacement cost
restoration expenses
cost of labor and materials
value of destroyed equipment or inventory
clean-up and hauling expenses
professional assessment fees, where properly connected and proved
rental of substitute equipment or premises in some cases
loss in value, if restoration is incomplete or impractical

Proof required

Philippine law requires that actual damages be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts generally look for:

official receipts
invoices
quotations tied to completed work
job orders
purchase documents
repair estimates
engineering reports
inspection reports
photographs and videos
titles, registrations, or proof of ownership
testimony of contractors, mechanics, engineers, adjusters, or appraisers

A bare claim that damage amounts to ₱400,000 is usually not enough. Courts prefer receipts and competent proof, not speculation.

VIII. Repair cost vs replacement cost vs market value

A recurring issue is how to measure property damage.

A. Cost of repair

If the property can be restored, the normal measure is the reasonable cost of repair.

B. Replacement value

If the property was totally destroyed or economically irreparable, recovery may be based on replacement value, subject to proof and depending on the nature and age of the item.

C. Fair market value or actual value

For used property, courts may consider actual value, taking into account depreciation, condition, and remaining useful life.

D. Diminution in value

Sometimes the property can be repaired but still loses value. In proper cases, the claimant may argue for the residual loss in value if sufficiently proved.

The claimant cannot ordinarily recover more than the real loss. Civil liability is compensatory, not a windfall.

IX. Temperate damages when exact proof is incomplete

When the fact of damage is certain but the exact amount cannot be proved with precision, courts may award temperate or moderate damages instead of denying recovery altogether.

This is relevant when:

the property was clearly damaged,
the defendant’s responsibility is established,
but some receipts or records are missing,
or exact computation is difficult due to the nature of the loss

Still, when the claim is specifically ₱400,000, the better practice is to substantiate the amount as fully as possible. Temperate damages are usually less predictable than a well-supported actual-damages claim.

X. Moral damages in property-damage cases

As a rule, moral damages are not automatically recoverable for mere damage to property. Philippine law is stricter with moral damages in purely property cases.

They may be recovered only in proper cases, such as where:

the wrongful act was attended by bad faith, fraud, malice, or wanton conduct
the case falls within recognized legal grounds for moral damages
the claimant also suffered a legally compensable form of mental anguish or similar injury tied to the defendant’s wrongful conduct

For ordinary negligence causing damage to a vehicle, wall, stock, or building, moral damages are not guaranteed. They must be justified by law and evidence.

XI. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages may be awarded by way of example or correction for the public good when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

Examples:

intentional destruction of property
deliberate cover-up after causing major damage
gross negligence bordering on willful disregard
repeated dangerous conduct despite warnings

Exemplary damages require a proper basis and do not stand alone; they usually accompany another form of recoverable damages.

XII. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses

Attorney’s fees are not automatically awarded just because the claimant won the case. Philippine courts require a legal and factual basis.

They may be awarded in situations recognized by the Civil Code, including when:

the defendant’s act or omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect their interest
the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith
exemplary damages are awarded
or other statutory or equitable grounds exist

Even then, courts often require clear reasons in the decision.

XIII. Interest on the amount of damage

Interest can materially increase a ₱400,000 claim.

Interest may be imposed:

from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand, in proper circumstances
or from the finality of judgment until full payment, depending on the character of the award and controlling jurisprudence

Whether pre-judgment interest applies depends on whether the amount was liquidated or ascertainable, the nature of the obligation, and when demand was made.

So if the underlying damage is ₱400,000 and payment is withheld for years, the final amount due can become substantially higher.

XIV. Extrajudicial demand: why it matters

Before filing suit, the injured party often sends a demand letter. This is not always strictly mandatory, but it is very important because it:

puts the defendant formally on notice
may trigger delay or default in obligations to pay
helps support interest claims in appropriate cases
creates documentary evidence of the attempt to settle
clarifies the amount, basis, and deadline for payment

A good demand letter usually states:

what happened
what property was damaged
why the recipient is liable
the amount being claimed
the supporting documents
the deadline to pay or respond

XV. Burden of proof

The claimant bears the burden of proving the civil case by preponderance of evidence.

This means the court must find that the claimant’s version is more believable and supported than the defendant’s.

For a ₱400,000 property-damage case, the claimant should ideally prove:

Ownership or legal interest in the property
Occurrence of the damaging event
Fault/negligence or breach
Causation
Extent and monetary value of the damage
Demand, if relevant
Any basis for additional damages

XVI. Evidence commonly used

The strongest cases usually contain a combination of:

Documentary evidence

titles, deeds, invoices, OR/CR for vehicles, official receipts
purchase orders, inventory logs, warehouse records
repair estimates and receipts
engineering or technical reports
barangay blotter, police report, fire investigation report
insurance claim documents
correspondence, emails, text messages
contracts, work orders, lease agreements

Physical and electronic evidence

photographs
CCTV footage
drone footage where relevant
damaged parts or samples
electronic logs and incident reports

Witness testimony

owner or custodian of the property
eyewitnesses
engineers, mechanics, appraisers, accountants
employees who observed the incident
fire officers, investigators, adjusters

Without competent proof of amount, a court may reduce the claim even if liability is established.

XVII. Contributory negligence

If the damaged party also acted negligently and contributed to the loss, recovery may be reduced.

Examples:

The owner left hazardous wiring exposed and a third party’s minor negligence worsened the damage
The claimant ignored obvious warnings or safety protocols
The damaged item was improperly secured or unlawfully placed

Contributory negligence does not necessarily erase recovery, but it can diminish damages depending on the circumstances.

XVIII. Vicarious liability: employers, owners, and others

In Philippine law, a person may be liable not only for their own acts but also, in proper cases, for the acts of others under their authority or control.

Employer liability

Employers may be liable for damage caused by employees acting within the scope of assigned tasks. This is highly relevant in cases involving:

company drivers
delivery personnel
machine operators
security guards
construction crews
warehouse workers

Employers often defend themselves by claiming due diligence in selection and supervision. Whether that defense succeeds depends on the applicable cause of action and the evidence presented.

Owners and managers

The owner or manager of an establishment may face liability when property damage arises from negligent operation, maintenance, or supervision.

Parents or guardians

Special rules may apply where minors or legally supervised persons caused the damage.

XIX. Independent civil action vs civil action with a criminal case

When the property damage also constitutes a crime, the injured party must think carefully about the procedural route.

A. Civil action deemed instituted with criminal action

In many criminal cases, the civil action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless reserved, waived, or separately filed as allowed by the rules.

B. Independent civil action

In some situations, the injured party may pursue a separate civil action based on quasi-delict, even if there is also a criminal case arising from the same act.

This matters because:

the standard of proof differs,
timelines differ,
the defenses may differ,
and the outcome in one case may affect the other in limited ways

A property-damage claim worth ₱400,000 may proceed more efficiently as a straight civil claim if the core issue is compensation rather than punishment, but that depends on the facts.

XX. Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property

This is one of the most common Philippine settings for civil liability involving property damage.

Typical examples:

vehicular collisions
industrial accidents
careless handling of equipment
unsafe use of fire, electricity, or machinery

A person who, through reckless imprudence, damages another’s property may face:

criminal prosecution, and
civil liability for the amount of the damage

In these cases, police reports, traffic sketches, CCTV, and mechanical inspections are often crucial.

XXI. Malicious or intentional property damage

When damage is intentional, the claimant may have a stronger basis not only for actual damages but also for:

moral damages, if legally justified
exemplary damages
attorney’s fees in proper cases

Intentional acts also weaken defenses based on accident or ordinary negligence.

XXII. Property damage involving fire

Fire-related claims are common and legally complex.

Potentially liable parties may include:

occupants who negligently caused ignition
landlords who failed to maintain safe electrical systems
contractors doing hot work without safeguards
utility-related actors
manufacturers, in some product-related settings
neighboring owners who allowed dangerous conditions to persist

In fire cases, proving causation is often the hardest part. Fire investigation reports, electrical assessments, and expert testimony may make or break a ₱400,000 claim.

XXIII. Property damage involving construction

Construction disputes frequently involve:

cracked walls
subsidence
collapsed fences
damaged waterproofing
vibration damage
flooding
falling debris

Liability may be based on:

negligence
breach of construction contract
nuisance
code violations
failure to observe professional standards

These cases often require engineering evidence, before-and-after photographs, and measurements.

XXIV. Property damage involving leased property

In lease situations, the questions usually include:

Was the damage due to ordinary wear and tear or negligence?
Did the tenant exceed normal use?
Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?
Who owned the damaged improvements or contents?
Is there a contractual stipulation on liability, repair, security deposit, or indemnity?

Contract terms can heavily affect the result, but they are still subject to law, public policy, and proof.

XXV. Insurance and subrogation

If the damaged property was insured and the insurer pays the owner, the insurer may become subrogated to the rights of the insured against the party responsible for the damage.

This means:

the owner may be paid first by the insurer,
and the insurer may later go after the wrongdoer to recover what it paid

In a ₱400,000 case, insurance can change the posture of the dispute:

who sues,
who is the real party in interest,
how much remains unpaid,
and whether the insured still has an uninsured portion to claim

If insurance partially covered the loss, there may be a split interest between insurer and insured.

XXVI. Settlement and compromise

Most property-damage disputes are legally compromiseable.

A settlement may cover:

principal amount
repair arrangements
installment payment
waiver or reduction of interest
release and quitclaim
insurer participation
withdrawal of complaint where appropriate

In practice, a ₱400,000 claim is often settled when liability is reasonably clear and documentation is strong. Settlement avoids long delays, uncertainty, and added cost.

XXVII. Defenses commonly raised by defendants

A defendant in a property-damage case may argue:

1. No negligence

The incident was a pure accident without fault.

2. No causation

The damage existed before, was caused by another event, or was worsened by unrelated factors.

3. Excessive valuation

The claimed ₱400,000 is inflated, unsupported, or includes upgrades unrelated to restoration.

4. Contributory negligence

The claimant partly caused or aggravated the damage.

5. No ownership or standing

The claimant does not own the property or lacks authority to sue.

6. Force majeure

The damage was caused by an unforeseeable and unavoidable event, and no negligence intervened.

7. Contractual limitation

The parties agreed on limits of liability, notice requirements, valuation methods, or assumption of risk.

8. Payment, settlement, waiver, or release

The claim has already been satisfied or compromised.

9. Prescription

The claim was filed beyond the allowable period.

XXVIII. Prescription: time limits for filing

Civil actions are subject to prescriptive periods, and the exact period depends on the nature of the action:

quasi-delict
written contract
oral contract
injury to rights
action arising from a crime
other statutory bases

Because the prescriptive period varies depending on the cause of action, identifying the correct legal basis is critical. Filing late can defeat even a meritorious ₱400,000 claim.

XXIX. Court jurisdiction and procedure

The proper court for a ₱400,000 property-damage case depends on the nature of the action and the jurisdictional rules in effect when the complaint is filed. What matters in practice is that the claimant must allege and prove the amount claimed and file in the court with proper jurisdiction over the subject matter, amount, and territory.

Procedural issues may include:

venue
filing fees
verification and certification against forum shopping
joinder of causes of action
impleading the correct parties
inclusion of insurer or employer where proper
preservation of evidence
provisional remedies in rare cases

Because jurisdictional thresholds can change through legislation or administrative rules, litigants must verify the applicable rule at the time of filing.

XXX. Small claims?

A ₱400,000 property-damage claim may or may not fit small claims depending on the nature of the claim and the then-applicable small claims rules. But ordinary tort-based property damage often raises factual and evidentiary issues that do not always align neatly with streamlined procedures. One must examine the governing procedural framework at the time of filing.

XXXI. Can a barangay case be required first?

Under the Katarungang Pambarangay system, certain disputes between parties residing in the same city or municipality may need barangay conciliation before court action, subject to exceptions.

This can matter in neighborhood property-damage disputes such as:

damaged fence
water seepage
wall collapse
minor construction-related damage
property loss between nearby residents

Failure to undergo required barangay conciliation can affect the case procedurally. But many exceptions exist, especially depending on the parties, location, urgency, or the nature of the dispute.

XXXII. Can criminal acquittal erase civil liability?

Not always.

In Philippine law, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically wipe out civil liability in every situation. Much depends on the ground for acquittal:

If the act or omission did not exist, civil liability may fail.
If acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, civil liability may still survive under the lower standard of preponderance of evidence, depending on the legal basis and the terms of the judgment.

This is why separate civil theories, especially quasi-delict, can be very important.

XXXIII. Joint and solidary liability

Where multiple defendants contributed to the property damage, liability issues may arise as to whether they are:

jointly liable, or
solidarily liable

Solidary liability is not presumed; it must arise from law, contract, or the nature of the obligation. This becomes significant when the claimant wants to recover the full ₱400,000 from one responsible party.

XXXIV. Duty to mitigate damages

The injured party must act reasonably to avoid unnecessary enlargement of the loss.

Examples:

covering an exposed roof after a collision
shutting off water after a pipe break
securing a damaged area from further theft or weather exposure
promptly arranging reasonable repairs

A claimant who lets damage worsen unreasonably may face a reduction in recovery for avoidable loss.

XXXV. Interest of possessors, lessees, and businesses

Ownership is not the only protected interest. A person in lawful possession or with a legitimate economic interest in the damaged property may also have claims, depending on the circumstances.

Examples:

a lessee whose equipment was damaged
a warehouse client whose stored goods were destroyed
a business operator whose stock or fixtures were harmed
a buyer in possession
a bailee or custodian in some settings

The key is showing a legally recognized interest and the extent of actual loss.

XXXVI. Business-related property damage

When the damaged property is used in business, the claim may include not only repair or replacement cost but, in proper cases, consequential loss that is proven with sufficient certainty.

Possible examples:

damaged inventory
spoiled goods
destroyed tools or machinery
loss of use of commercial premises
interruption costs

Philippine courts are cautious with speculative business-loss claims. Documentary support is essential.

XXXVII. Common mistakes in ₱400,000 property-damage cases

Many otherwise valid claims fail or shrink because of avoidable mistakes such as:

no immediate photographs of the damage
no receipts or proof of value
failure to document pre-damage condition
suing the wrong defendant
ignoring the contractual basis of the claim
relying only on estimates without completion records
no proof of demand
no proof linking the defendant’s act to the loss
delayed filing
overstating the claim beyond what evidence supports

XXXVIII. Practical structure of a strong claim

A strong Philippine property-damage claim worth ₱400,000 usually has this structure:

1. Liability narrative

A clear factual account of how the defendant caused the damage.

2. Legal theory

Quasi-delict, breach of contract, civil liability from crime, or a combination allowed by law.

3. Proof of ownership or interest

Who owned or lawfully controlled the damaged property.

4. Proof of damage

Photos, reports, witness testimony, receipts, technical findings.

5. Quantification

How the ₱400,000 amount was computed.

6. Demand

A written demand with deadline.

7. Supporting basis for additional relief

Interest, attorney’s fees, moral or exemplary damages where justified.

XXXIX. Illustrative scenarios

Scenario 1: Vehicular damage to a storefront

A delivery truck crashes into a sari-sari store frontage, damaging rolling shutters, glass panels, shelving, and inventory worth ₱400,000. Possible causes of action:

quasi-delict against the driver
vicarious liability against the employer
possibly criminal action for reckless imprudence Proof needed:
CCTV
police report
repair invoices
inventory records
witness testimony

Scenario 2: Construction damage to adjacent house

A contractor’s excavation causes cracks and partial wall failure in a neighboring house, with repair cost assessed at ₱400,000. Possible causes of action:

quasi-delict
nuisance
code-related negligence Key proof:
engineering report
photos before and after
contractor activity records
neighbor testimony
itemized repair estimate

Scenario 3: Fire caused by negligent wiring

Faulty wiring maintained by a landlord triggers a fire that destroys a tenant’s appliances and furniture valued at ₱400,000. Possible causes of action:

breach of lease obligations
quasi-delict
possibly insurer subrogation if the tenant was insured Key proof:
fire report
electrical inspection
receipts for appliances/furniture
lease contract
demand letter

XL. Are receipts always indispensable?

Receipts are the best evidence of actual damages, but not the only possible evidence in every situation. Courts may consider:

credible testimony
estimates corroborated by experts
market-based replacement evidence
prior purchase records
inventory books
photos and technical reports

Still, the absence of receipts often weakens the claim for exact actual damages and may push the court toward a lower award or temperate damages.

XLI. Can the claimant recover the full ₱400,000 exactly as claimed?

Only if the evidence supports that exact amount.

Courts may:

award the full amount,
reduce the amount,
grant only temperate damages,
deny unsupported components,
add interest,
or dismiss the case if causation or proof is insufficient

The number written in the complaint is not self-executing; it must be proven.

XLII. Relationship with insurance deductibles and partial payments

If the owner already received partial payment from:

an insurer,
the defendant,
a contractor,
or another liable party,

the court will consider those payments to avoid double recovery.

If the insurer paid only part of the loss, the remaining uninsured amount may still be claimed by the owner, subject to subrogation principles.

XLIII. Force majeure and unavoidable accident

Defendants often invoke force majeure in property-damage disputes involving:

typhoons
floods
earthquakes
accidental fires
sudden infrastructure failure

But force majeure is not a universal shield. If negligence concurred with the supposedly fortuitous event, liability may still attach.

Example: A severe storm occurs, but the real reason the neighbor’s property was damaged was that the defendant failed to secure scaffolding or repair a dangerous structure beforehand.

XLIV. Importance of identifying the right defendant

A ₱400,000 claim can fail if filed against the wrong person.

Possible proper defendants may include:

the direct tortfeasor
the employer
the vehicle owner, depending on the legal theory and facts
the contractor or subcontractor
the building owner or manager
the lessee or occupant
the insurer in very limited circumstances dictated by law and contract
multiple parties whose acts combined to produce the damage

Naming all materially responsible parties, where justified, is often essential.

XLV. Final legal picture

In the Philippines, civil liability for property damage worth ₱400,000 is fundamentally a matter of proof of fault, proof of causation, and proof of amount. The law does not award damages simply because a loss is alleged. It awards damages when the claimant can show, by preponderance of evidence, that the defendant is legally responsible and that the amount claimed is real, reasonable, and properly documented.

The most important rules to remember are these:

Property damage may arise from quasi-delict, crime, or breach of contract
₱400,000 must be supported by evidence, not estimate alone
The usual remedy is actual or compensatory damages
Moral and exemplary damages are possible only in proper cases
Interest can significantly increase the total recoverable amount
Employers and other responsible superiors may also be liable
Insurance can shift who may recover through subrogation
Contributory negligence, force majeure, prescription, and lack of proof are major defenses
The correct forum, procedure, and cause of action matter as much as the underlying facts

In short, a ₱400,000 property-damage claim in Philippine law is not just about showing that something was broken. It is about establishing, with legal and evidentiary discipline, who is answerable, under what legal theory, for how much, and on what proof.