Scribd
Upload
43 views1 page

PICART, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellee G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918 Facts

The plaintiff was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile approached from the opposite direction at around 10-12 mph. The defendant driving the automobile blew his horn multiple times as a warning. Though warned, the plaintiff pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of the left. As the automobile passed, it came into close proximity with the pony, frightening it. The pony reared and its leg was broken by the automobile. The court found the defendant negligent, as a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and slowed down or veered further right to avoid harming the horse and rider. While the plaintiff was also at fault for being on the wrong side, the defendant had the last chance to avoid

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
43 views1 page

PICART, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellee G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918 Facts

The plaintiff was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile approached from the opposite direction at around 10-12 mph. The defendant driving the automobile blew his horn multiple times as a warning. Though warned, the plaintiff pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of the left. As the automobile passed, it came into close proximity with the pony, frightening it. The pony reared and its leg was broken by the automobile. The court found the defendant negligent, as a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and slowed down or veered further right to avoid harming the horse and rider. While the plaintiff was also at fault for being on the wrong side, the defendant had the last chance to avoid

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

 PICART, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, JR.

, defendant-appellee

G.R. No. L-12219 March 15, 1918

FACTS:

On December 12, 1912, on the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union the plaintiff was riding on his
pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, the defendant approached from the
opposite direction in an automobile, going at the rate of about ten or twelve miles per hour. As the
defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give warning of his approach.
He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as it
appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road.

The plaintiff saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. However, being perturbed by the
novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the railing
on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. As the  automobile approached, the defendant
guided it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for the machine. In so doing the defendant
assumed that the horseman would move to the other side. The pony had not as yet exhibited fright, and
the rider had made no sign for the automobile to stop. Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the
defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet some distance away or slowing down, continued to
approach directly toward the horse without diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite near, the
defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing
where it as then standing; but in so doing the automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that
it became frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head toward the railing. In so doing, it
has struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell
and its rider was thrown off with some violence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant was negligent.

RULING:

YES. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by
that. Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present case we think that negligence is
clearly established. A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, would in our opinion, have
recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would therefore have
foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as reasonable consequence of that course. Under these
circumstances the law imposed on the defendant the duty to guard against the threatened harm.

The plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself
on the wrong side of the road. But the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem
always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly

responsible. Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last  fair chance to avoid
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party. While contributory negligence on the part of the person injured did not
constitute a bar to recovery, it could be received in evidence to reduce the damages which would
otherwise have been assessed wholly against the other party.

You might also like