Picart vs. Smith., 37 Phil.

809 , March 15, 1918

Case Title : AMADO PICART, plaintiff and appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, jr., defendant and appellee.Case Nature : APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of La Union. Camus, J. Syllabi Class : NEGLIGENCE|CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Syllabi: 1. NEGLIGENCE; CRITERION FOR DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF NEGLI-GENCE.+ 2. NEGLIGENCE; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT ACTS.+ 3. NEGLIGENCE; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR.+ Docket Number: No. 12219 Counsel: Alejo Mabanag, G. E. Campbell Ponente: STREET Dispositive Portion: From what has been said it results that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of two hundred pesos (P200), with costs of both instances. The sum here awarded is estimated to include the value of the horse, medical expenses of the plaintiff, the loss or damage occasioned to articles of -his apparel, and lawful interest on the whole to the date of this recovery. The other damages claimed by the plaintiff are remote or otherwise of such character as not to be recoverable. So ordered.
[No. 12219. March 15, 1918.] AMADO PICART, plaintiff and appellant, vs. FRANK SMITH, jr., defendant and appellee. 1.NEGLIGENCE; CRITERION FOR DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act

whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so con 810 810 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED Picart vs. Smith. stitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is the constitutive f act in negligence. 2.ID.; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT ACTS. Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last reasonable opportunity 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. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR.The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge, Seeing an automobile ahead he improperly pulled his horse over to the railing on the right. The driver of the automobile, however, guided his car toward the plaintiff without diminution of speed until he was only a few feet away. He then turned to the right but passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened, jumped around and was killed by the passing car. Held: That although the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in being on the wrong side of the bridge, the defendant was nevertheless civilly liable for the legal damages resulting from the collision, as he had a fair opportunity to avoid the accident af ter he realized the situation created by the negligence of the plaintiff and failed to avail himself of that opportunity; while the plaintiff could by no means then place himself in a position of greater safety. [Picart vs. Smith., 37 Phil. 809(1918)]