Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G1 Report - Torts & Damages - NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE
G1 Report - Torts & Damages - NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE
signals. However he did not move his horse to the other lane,
TORTS REPORT: NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. His reason
was that, he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over
the other side. The horse (pony) did not yet exhibit fright so
Snith, instead of veering to the right while yet some distance
A. Definition away, continued driving towards Picart without slowing down
and when he was already near the horse he quickly turned his
car to the right side to escape. But the horse got scared so it
turned its body across the bridge; the horse was struck on the
hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car and the limb
Among the elements that the plaintiff suing for negligence will was broken. The horse fell and Picart was thrown out with
have to prove is that the defendant's violation of a duty was the some violence. As a result of its injuries the horse died and
actual and proximate cause of his or her injuries. Picart received contusions which caused temporary
unconsciousness and required medical attention for several
Negligence : is statutorily defined to be the omission of days.
that degree of diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation and RULING OF THE LOWER COURT:
Frank Smith was absolved from liability
corresponding to the circumstances of
persons, time and place. ISSUE:
Whether or not Smith, in maneuvering his car was guilty of
: Failure to exercise the care that a negligence.
reasonably prudent person would exercise.
RULING:
: Failure to observe degree of care, Yes.
precaution and vigilance that the To determine the existence of negligence in the particular case
circumstances justly demand, whereby that may be stated as follows: Did the defendant (Smith) in doing
other person suffers injury. the alleged negligent act use what that person would have
used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence.
Under these circumstances, the law said that the person who
G.R. No. L-12219March 15, 1918 has the LAST CLEAR CHANCE to avoid the impending harm
AMADO PICART vs FRANK SMITH, JR. and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party. This in this
FACTS: case was Frank Smith.
(An appealed case base on the decision of the lower court -
Court of First Instance of Prov. Of La Union.)
TORTS & DAMAGES Section A Group 1: Geonzon, Ledesma, Membreve, Sedurifa, Tampus
with Cusi at the wheel. Upon reaching the railroad tracks, whereby such degree of care and vigilance is measured, it is
finding that the level crossing bar was raised and seeing that dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds
there was no flashing red light, and hearing no whistle from himself so situated. All that the law requires is that it is always
any coming train, Cusi merely slack ened his speed and incumbent upon a person to use that care and diligence
proceeded to cross the tracks. At the same time, a train bound expected of reasonable men under similar circumstances.
for Lucena traversed the crossing, resulting in a collision
between the two. The impact threw the Cusi and Pobre out of Undisputably, the warning devices installed at the railroad
their car which was smashed. One Benjamin Franco, who crossing were manually operated; there were only 2 shifts of
came from the same party and was driving a vehicle right guards provided for the operation thereof. On the night of the
behind them, rushed to their aid and brought them to San Juan accident, the train for Lucena was on an unscheduled trip after
de Dios Hospital for emergency treatment. Later, the Cusi and 11:00 P.M. During that precise hour, the warning devices were
Pobre were transferred to the Philippine General Hospital. A not operating for no one attended to them.
week later, Mrs. Cusi transferred to the Manila Doctors
Hospital where Dr. Manuel Rivera, head of the Orthopedic and The signal devices were wholly manually-operated; there was
Fracture Service of the Philippine General Hospital performed an urgent need for a flagman or guard to man the crossing at
on her a second operation and continued to treat her until her all times. As it was, the crossing was left unattended to after
discharge from the hospital on November 2, 1963. eleven o'clock every night and on the night of the accident. The
Court cannot in all reason justify or condone the act of the
For these injuries, she underwent a total of four surgical opera. defendant-appellant allowing the subject locomotive to travel
Petition run for a period of two years. As a result of the fracture through the unattended crossing with inoperative signal
on her right arm, there was a shortening of about 1 cm. of that devices, but without sending any of its employees to operate
arm. She lost the flexibility of her wrist, elbow and shoulder. Up said signal devices so as to warn oncoming motorists of the
to the time she took the witness stand in August, 1966, she still approach of one of its locomotives. It is not surprising therefore
had an intermedullary nail in the bone of her right arm. that the in operation of the warning devices created a situation
Likewise, Victorino Cusi suffered brain injuries which affected which was misunderstood by the riding public to mean safe
his speech, memory, sense of hearing and neck movement. passage.
For a long period, he also felt pain all over his body. Victorino
Cusi claimed that prior to the accident he was a successful After a thorough perusal of the facts attendant to the case, this
businessman. On the other hand, his wife, Pilar, was a skilled Court is in fun accord with the lower court. Plaintiff-appellee
music and piano teacher. After the accident, she lost the Victorino Cusi had exercised all the necessary precautions
dexterity of her fingers forcing her to quit her profession. She required of him as to avoid injury to -him and to others. We find
also bore ugly scars on several parts of her body, and she no need for him to have made a full stop; relying on his
suffered anxiety of a possible miscarriage being then five (5) faculties of sight and hearing, Victorino Cusi had no reason to
months pregnant at the time of the accident. anticipate the impending danger.
TORTS & DAMAGES Section A Group 1: Geonzon, Ledesma, Membreve, Sedurifa, Tampus
circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing x x x – Where the particular harm was reasonably foreseeable
in an inhabited town, village, or city. (Brown vs. Kendall, 60 at the time of the defendant’s misconduct, his act or omission
Mass. 292 [1850]; see also People vs. Cusi, CA 68 O.G. 2777). is the legal cause thereof. Foreseeability is the fundamental
test of the law of negligence. To be negligent, the defendant
c) Emergency Rule
The “emergency rule” was applied is McKee vs. must have acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary
Intermediate Appellate Court (211 SCRA 517 [1992]). One of reasonable man would have realized that certain interests of
the plaintiffs therein swerved his vehicle in order to avoid certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a general but
hitting two (2) children. The Supreme Court explained that “any definite class of risk which made the actor’s conduct negligent,
reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried to it is obviously the consequence for the actor must be held
avoid running over two boys by swerving the car away from legally responsible. Otherwise, the legal duty is entirely
where they where even if this would mean entering the
defeated. Accordingly, the generalization may be formulated
opposite lane.
Exception: the emergency in which that all particular consequences, that is, consequences which
he finds himself is brought about by occur in a manner which was reasonably foreseeable by the
his own negligence. defendant at the time of his misconduct are legally caused by
his breach of duty x x x.
d) Gravity of harm to be avoided
Even if the odds that an injury will result is not high,
harm may still be considered foreseeable if the gravity of harm
to be avoided is great. Thus, in one case (Consolacion Junio
vs. Manila Railroad Company, 58 Phil. 176 [1933]),
General Rule:
Exceptions:
In the case of AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC When the rules or the law provide for cases when
COOPERATIVE, INC. (ANECO) vs.BALEN negligence is presumed (AQUINO, Torts and
Damages, supra at 135-136)
G.R. No. 173146 November 25, 2009, the court held:
TORTS & DAMAGES Section A Group 1: Geonzon, Ledesma, Membreve, Sedurifa, Tampus
Jurisprudence incurred but for the negligent act of the defendant in leaving
the caps exposed on its premises, nevertheless plaintiff’s
TAYLOR vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-8328, May 18, 1956 own act was the proximate and principal cause of the
accident which inflicted the injury.
FACTS:
We think it is quite clear that the immediate cause of
An action to recover damages for the loss of an eye the explosion ,the accident which resulted in plaintiff’s injury
and other injuries, instituted by David Taylor, a minor, by his ,was his own act in putting a match to the contents of the cap,
father, his nearest relative. The defendant is a foreign and that having “ contributed to the principal occurrence,
corporation engaged in the operation of a street railway and an as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover”.
electric light system in the city of Manila. The plaintiff, David
Taylor, was at the time when he received the injuries SO ORDERED. Judgment of the court below
complained of, 15 years of age. reversed.
HELD:
TORTS & DAMAGES Section A Group 1: Geonzon, Ledesma, Membreve, Sedurifa, Tampus