Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 589 views

    PICART Vs Smith Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lea Underscore
    1) Picart was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile driven by Smith approached from the opposite direction. Picart pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of moving to the left to allow Smith to pass. 2) As Smith's automobile neared the bridge, he continued at the same speed instead of slowing down or moving to the right to give more space. When the automobile passed close to the pony, it got frightened and was hit, resulting in injury to the pony and Picart. 3) The court found that Smith was negligent because a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and taken precautions like slowing down or moving over. Smith had the last opportunity to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PICART Vs Smith Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lea Underscore
    589 views2 pages
    1) Picart was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile driven by Smith approached from the opposite direction. Picart pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of moving to the left to allow Smith to pass. 2) As Smith's automobile neared the bridge, he continued at the same speed instead of slowing down or moving to the right to give more space. When the automobile passed close to the pony, it got frightened and was hit, resulting in injury to the pony and Picart. 3) The court found that Smith was negligent because a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and taken precautions like slowing down or moving over. Smith had the last opportunity to avoid

    Original Title

    PICART vs smith case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Picart was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile driven by Smith approached from the opposite direction. Picart pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of moving to the left to allow Smith to pass. 2) As Smith's automobile neared the bridge, he continued at the same speed instead of slowing down or moving to the right to give more space. When the automobile passed close to the pony, it got frightened and was hit, resulting in injury to the pony and Picart. 3) The court found that Smith was negligent because a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and taken precautions like slowing down or moving over. Smith had the last opportunity to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    589 views2 pages

    PICART Vs Smith Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lea Underscore
    1) Picart was riding his pony across a bridge when an automobile driven by Smith approached from the opposite direction. Picart pulled his pony to the right side of the bridge instead of moving to the left to allow Smith to pass. 2) As Smith's automobile neared the bridge, he continued at the same speed instead of slowing down or moving to the right to give more space. When the automobile passed close to the pony, it got frightened and was hit, resulting in injury to the pony and Picart. 3) The court found that Smith was negligent because a prudent person would have recognized the risk in his actions and taken precautions like slowing down or moving over. Smith had the last opportunity to avoid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PICART vs. SMITH, JR.

    From a judgment of the CFI of La Union


    absolving Smith from liability Picart has appealed.
    G.R. No. L-12219
    ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence
    March 15, 1918 such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the
    damage done
    STREET, J.:
    HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be
    FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the
    Picart was riding on his pony over said bridge. Picart recover of Smith damages
    Before he had gotten half way across, Smith
    approached from the opposite direction in an YES
    automobile. As the defendant neared the bridge he
    saw a horseman on it and blew his horn to give The test by which to determine the existence of
    warning of his approach. He continued his course negligence in a particular case may be stated as
    and after he had taken the bridge he gave two follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
    more successive blasts, as it appeared to him that negligent act use that person would have used in
    the man on horseback before him was not the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
    observing the rule of the road. negligence. The existence of negligence in a given
    case is not determined by reference to the personal
    Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
    warning signals. However, being perturbed by the The law considers what would be reckless,
    novelty of the apparition or the rapidity of the blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
    approach, he pulled the pony closely up against intelligence and prudence and determines liability
    the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of by that. The question as to what would constitute
    going to the left. He says that the reason he did the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation
    this was that he thought he did not have sufficient must of course be always determined in the light
    time to get over to the other side. As the of human experience and in view of the facts
    automobile approached, Smith guided it toward involved in the particular case.
    his left, that being the proper side of the road for
    the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed Could a prudent man, in the case under
    that the horseman would move to the other side. consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
    Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of
    defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet the actor to take precautions to guard against that
    some distance away or slowing down, continued harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
    to approach directly toward the horse without ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision,
    diminution of speed. When he had gotten quite is always necessary before negligence can be held
    near, there being then no possibility of the horse to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion
    getting across to the other side, the defendant for determining the existence of negligence in a
    quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent
    escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the when a prudent man in the position of the
    automobile passed in such close proximity to the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
    animal that it became frightened and turned its harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
    body across the bridge, got hit by the car and the warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against
    limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was its consequences.
    thrown off with some violenceAs a result of its
    injuries the horse died. The plaintiff received Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant
    contusions which caused temporary in the present case we think that negligence is
    unconsciousness and required medical attention clearly established. A prudent man, placed in the
    for several days. 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
    Smith the duty to guard against the threatened
    harm.

    It goes without saying that 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 as we have already
    stated, Smith was also negligent; and in such case
    the problem always is to discover which agent is
    immediately and directly responsible. It will be
    noted that the negligent acts of the two parties
    were not contemporaneous, since the negligence
    of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the
    plaintiff by an appreciable interval. 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.

    You might also like