AMADO PICART vs. FRANK SMITH, JR.

G.R. No. L-12219

March 15, 1918
FACTS:
In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a 75 meter
long bridge, he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew his horn thrice while he
was still at a distance away because Picart and his horse were on Smiths lane. But Picart did
not move his horse to the other lane, instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith
continued driving towards Picart without slowing down and when he was already so near the
horse he swerved to the other lane. But the horse got scared so it turned its body across the
bridge; the horse struck the car and its limb got broken. Picart suffered injuries which required
several days of medical attention while the horse eventually died.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Smith is negligent.
HELD:
Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But Smiths
negligence succeeded that of Picart. Smith saw at a distance when he blew his horn that Picart
and his horse did not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other
lane at that point instead of swerving at the last minute. He therefore had the last clear
chance to avoid the unfortunate incident. When Smiths car has approached the horse at such
proximity it left no chance for Picart extricate himself and vigilance on his part will not avert
injury. Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith but such should be proportioned by
reason of his contributory negligence.
The problem is always 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 Picart succeeded the negligence of the Smith by an appreciable interval.
Under the circumstances, the person who has the last clear chance to avoid the impending
harm and fails to do it is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior
negligence of the other party.