Importance of Standard

The Fictitious Person

Picart v. Smith, 1918 — An automobile hit a horseman, who was on the wrong side of the road. The horseman thought he
did not have time to get to the other side. The car passed by too close that the horse turned its body across, with its head
toward the railing. Its limb was broken, and its rider was thrown off and injured. The SC found the automobile driver negligent,
since a prudent man should have foreseen the risk in his course and that he had the last fair chance to avoid the harm.
Doctrine: The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
The law here in effect adopts the standard suppose to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the
Roman law. 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.
Notes: The Picart test is the most cited test of negligence. It introduced the use of the fictitious person. It has the markings of
common law but because it uses the concept of the discreet paterfamilias, later enshrined in the Civil Code as the good father of
a family, it is now a civil law test.
Sicam v. Jorge, 2007 — Jorge pawned jewelry with Agencia de R. C. Sicam. Armed men entered the pawnshop and took away
cash and jewelry from the pawnshop vault. Jorge demanded the return of the jewelry. The pawnshop failed. The SC held Sicam
liable for failing to employ sufficient safeguards for the pawned goods. It held that robbery, if negligence concurred, is not a
fortuitous event. Also, Article 2099 requires a creditor to take care of the thing pledged with the diligence of a good father of a
family.
Doctrine: The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of
the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform. Negligence, therefore, is the omission
to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do; or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is want of care required by
the circumstances.
Notes: The fictitious person is not the standard. It is his conduct.
Corinthian Gardens v. Tanjangco, 2008 — The Cuasos built their house on a lot adjoining that owned by the Tanjangcos.
Their plan was approved by Corinthian Gardens. It turned out, however, that the house built encroached on the lot of the
Tanjangcos. The SC found Corinthian Gardens negligent for conducting only "table inspections," when it should have conducted
actual site inspections, which could have prevented the encroachment.
Doctrine: A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be
one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action of the other, a third
person, an animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in
the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or
to do it in a more careful manner.
Notes: The test cited in the case was the Picart test.
Special Circumstances
Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, 2010 — Albayda, Master Sergeant in the Philippine Air Force, was at an intersection riding his
bike when he was hit by a taxi driven by Completo. Albayda suffered injuries, including breaking his knee. The SC found
Completo negligent, since he was overspeeding when he reached the intersection. Also, the bike already had the right of way at
the time of the incident.
Doctrine: The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway, and it is
fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to the other
because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the bicycle.
Notes: The witnesses for the same parties are of the same number. It seems odd, therefore, to apply the test of negligence
when the facts are not settled by preponderance of evidence. Thus, it appears that the court sympathized with Albayda, who
was serving the government and was left by his wife, supposedly because of his injuries.
Pacis v. Morales, 2010 — Morales owned a gun shop. An employee of the shop allowed Pacis to inspect a gun brought in for
repair. It turned out that the gun was loaded and when Pacis laid it down, it discharged a bullet, hitting his head. He died. The
SC found Morales, as the owner, liable, since he failed to exercise the diligence required of a good father of a family, much less
that required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons.
Doctrine: A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality
extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of
dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the
ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the
exercise of a higher degree of care.
Notes: Two things may be considered negligent: the keeping of a defective gun loaded and the storing a defective gun in a
drawer. It is strange, however, that the negligence of the employee was not discussed, when the presumption that the
employer was negligent only arises after the negligence of the employee is established. Also, that the wound sustained was in
the head appears to be a factual anomaly.
Children
Taylor v. Manila Railroad, 1910 — David Taylor, 15 years old, and Manuel, 12, obtained fulminating caps from the
compound of Manila Railroad. They experimented on them. The experiment ended with a bang, literally. The explosion caused
injury to the right eye of Taylor. His father sued for damages. The defense of Manila Railroad is the entry to their compound
was without its invitation. The SC held that the absence of invitation cannot relieve Manila Railroad from liability. However, it
held that the proximate cause of the injury was Taylor's negligence.
Doctrine: The personal circumstances of the child may be considered in determining the existence of negligence on his part.