Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Picart vs. Smith

    Transféré par

    Faye Cience Bohol
    223 vues2 pages
    Smith approached Picart on a narrow bridge in an automobile. While Picart was negligent to remain on the wrong side of the bridge, Smith failed to slow down or move to the right as he got close, frightening Picart's horse. Though both were negligent, Smith had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so, making him liable despite Picart's initial negligence. Under the last clear chance doctrine, the party with the final opportunity to prevent harm is responsible if they fail to do so.

    Description originale:

    Tort Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Smith approached Picart on a narrow bridge in an automobile. While Picart was negligent to remain on the wrong side of the bridge, Smith failed to slow down or move to the right as he got close, frightening Picart's horse. Though both were negligent, Smith had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so, making him liable despite Picart's initial negligence. Under the last clear chance doctrine, the party with the final opportunity to prevent harm is responsible if they fail to do so.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    223 vues2 pages

    Picart vs. Smith

    Transféré par

    Faye Cience Bohol
    Smith approached Picart on a narrow bridge in an automobile. While Picart was negligent to remain on the wrong side of the bridge, Smith failed to slow down or move to the right as he got close, frightening Picart's horse. Though both were negligent, Smith had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so, making him liable despite Picart's initial negligence. Under the last clear chance doctrine, the party with the final opportunity to prevent harm is responsible if they fail to do so.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    002 AMADO PICART, plaintiffappellant, vs.

    FRANK
    SMITH,JR.,defendantappellee.
    [G.R.No.L12219;March15,1918]
    TOPIC:TestofNegligence;LastClearChance
    PONENTE:STREET,J.

    AUTHOR:
    NOTES:(ifapplicable)

    FACTS:
    1. PlaintiffAmadoPicartwasridingonhisponyontheCarlatanBridgeinSanFernando,LaUnion. Beforehehadgottenhalfway
    across,Smithapproachedfromtheoppositedirectioninanautomobile.
    2. AstheSmithnearedthebridgehesawahorseman(Picart)onitandblewhishorntogivewarningofhisapproach.Hegavetwo
    moresuccessiveblastsbecausePicartandhishorsewereondefendantslane.
    3. Picartsawtheautomobilecomingandheardthewarningsignals.However,beingperturbedbytherapidityoftheapproach,he
    pulledtheponytotherightsideofthebridgeinsteadofgoingtotheleftforhethoughthedidnothavesufficienttimetogetover
    totheotherside.
    4. Smithguidedhisautomobiletowardhisleft,thatbeingthepropersideoftheroadforthemachine.Insodoingheassumedthat
    Picartwouldmovetotheotherside.Seeingthattheponywasapparentlyquiet,thedefendant,insteadofveeringtotherightwhile
    yetsomedistanceawayorslowingdown,continuedtoapproachdirectlytowardthehorsewithoutdiminutionofspeed.
    5. Whenhehadgottenquitenear,therebeingthennopossibilityofthehorsegettingacrosstotheotherside,thedefendantquickly
    turnedhiscarsufficientlytotherighttoescapehittingthehorse;butinsodoingtheautomobilepassedinsuchcloseproximityto
    theanimalthatitbecamefrightenedandturneditsbodyacrossthebridge,gothitbythecarandthelimbwasbroken.
    6. Thehorsefellanditsriderwasthrownoffwithsomeviolence.Asaresultofitsinjuriesthehorsedied.Theplaintiffreceived
    contusionswhichcausedtemporaryunconsciousnessandrequiredmedicalattentionforseveraldays.
    ISSUE(S):Whetherornotthedefendantinmaneuveringhiscarinthemannerabovedescribedwasguiltyofnegligencesuchasgives
    risetoacivilobligationtorepairthedamagedone.
    HELD:YES.
    RATIO:
    Thetestbywhichtodeterminetheexistenceofnegligenceinaparticularcasemaybestatedasfollows:Didthedefendantin
    doingtheallegednegligentactusethatreasonablecareandcautionwhichanordinarilyprudentpersonwouldhaveusedinthe
    samesituation?Ifnot,thenheisguiltyofnegligence.
    Conductissaidtobenegligentwhenaprudentmaninthepositionofthetortfeasorwouldhaveforeseenthataneffectharmfulto
    anotherwassufficientlyprobabletowarranthisforegoingtheconductorguardingagainstitsconsequences.
    Asthedefendantstartedacrossthebridge,hehadtherighttoassumethatthehorseandriderwouldpassovertotheproperside;
    butashemovedtowardthecenterofthebridgeitwasdemonstratedtohiseyesthatthiswouldnotbedone;andhemustina
    momenthaveperceivedthatitwastoolateforthehorsetocrosswithsafetyinfrontofthemovingvehicle.Inthenatureofthings
    thischangeofsituationoccurredwhiletheautomobilewasyetsomedistanceaway;andfromthismomentitwasnotlongerwithin
    thepoweroftheplaintifftoescapebeingrundownbygoingtoaplaceofgreatersafety.Thecontrolofthesituationhadthen
    passedentirelytothedefendant.
    Itgoeswithoutsayingthattheplaintiffhimselfwasnotfreefromfault,forhewasguiltyofantecedentnegligenceinplanting
    himselfonthewrongsideoftheroad.Butaswehavealreadystated,Smithwasalsonegligent;andinsuchcasetheproblem
    alwaysistodiscoverwhichagentisimmediatelyanddirectlyresponsible.Itwillbenotedthatthenegligentactsofthetwoparties
    werenotcontemporaneous,sincethenegligenceofthedefendantsucceededthenegligenceoftheplaintiffbyanappreciable
    interval.
    Underthecircumstances,thelawisthatthepersonwhohasthelastclearchancetoavoidtheimpendingharmandfailstodoitis
    chargeablewiththeconsequences,withoutreferencetothepriornegligenceoftheotherparty.
    Thelastclearchanceruleofthelawofnegligenceisparticularlyappliedtoautomobileaccidents.Thisrulecannotbeinvoked
    wherethenegligenceoftheplaintiffisconcurrentwiththatofthedefendant.
    CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
    Thetestbywhichtodeterminetheexistenceofnegligenceinaparticularcasemaybestatedasfollows:Didthedefendantindoingthe
    allegednegligentactusethatreasonablecareandcautionwhichanordinarilyprudentpersonwouldhaveusedinthesamesituation?If
    not,thenheisguiltyofnegligence.
    Conductissaidtobenegligentwhenaprudentmaninthepositionofthetortfeasorwouldhaveforeseenthataneffectharmfulto
    anotherwassufficientlyprobabletowarranthisforegoingtheconductorguardingagainstitsconsequences.
    Thepersonwhohasthelastclearchancetoavoidtheimpendingharmandfailstodoitischargeablewiththeconsequences,without
    referencetothepriornegligenceoftheotherparty.

    Thelastclearchanceruleofthelawofnegligencecannotbeinvokedwherethenegligenceoftheplaintiffisconcurrentwiththatofthe
    defendant.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi