You are on page 1of 1

Article 2185.

Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation

The doctrine has five elements that must be proven in order to show that the defendant had the last clear
chance:

1. The plaintiff placed themselves in the situation of danger because of their own negligence
2. The plaintiff could not avoid the danger
3. The defendant recognized the dangerous situation and had a duty to avoid it
4. The defendant failed to avoid the danger despite having an opportunity to avoid it
5. As a result of the defendant not avoiding the danger, the plaintiff was injured

Picart vs Smith (General Rule)


The control of the situation had then passed entirely to the defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car
to an immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass
sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of doing this, the defendant ran
straight on until he was almost upon the horse.

The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor
in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

Pantranco vs. Baesa G.R. Nos. 79050-51. November 14, 1989 (Exemption)

The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is not applied in blanket. The collision of a bus and jeepney in this case
has led the Court to re-emphasized two basic exemptions in the application of the doctrine.

xxx 1) it is necessary to show that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the
accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due care, have been aware
of it. One cannot be expected to avoid an accident or injury if he does not know or could not have known
the existence of the peril. In this case, there is nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico knew of
the impending danger. When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on his lane,
he did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since he must have assumed
that the bus driver will return the bus to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney approaching from the
opposite direction xxx

Moreover, even if the jeepney had known the peril, the Court reiterated that it would be impossible for anyone
to prevent the same.
xxx By the time David Ico must have realized that the bus was not returning to its own lane, it was already
too late to swerve the jeepney to his right to prevent an accident. The speed at which the approaching
bus was running prevented David Ico from swerving the jeepney to the right shoulder of the road in
time to avoid the collision. Thus, even assuming that the jeepney driver perceived the danger a few
seconds before the actual collision, he had no opportunity to avoid it. This Court has held that the last
clear chance doctrine 2) "can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously,
and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered" xxx