Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · Test of negligence; last clear chance
Picart vs. Smith
A rider pulled his pony to the wrong side of a bridge as a car approached. The driver kept coming without slowing down, and the frightened pony was struck.
Facts
December 12, 1912
Amado Picart was riding his pony across the Carlatan Bridge in San Fernando, La Union, when Frank Smith, Jr. approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, at about ten or twelve miles per hour, and blew his horn.
On the bridge
Picart saw the car and heard the warnings, but instead of going to the left, he pulled the pony close to the railing on the right side of the bridge. Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, Smith did not veer to the right while still some distance away or slow down; he continued straight toward the horse.
The accident
When he was quite near, Smith turned to the right, but passed so close that the pony became frightened and turned across the bridge. The car struck it, and it died of its injuries. Picart was thrown off, lost consciousness for a time and needed medical attention for several days.
The suit
Picart sued Smith for damages. The Court of First Instance of La Union absolved Smith, and Picart appealed.
Issue
Was Smith negligent in the way he drove past the horse, so as to be civilly liable for the damage?
Ruling
Yes. The Court reversed the trial court and ordered Smith to pay Picart P200, with costs.
Once it was clear that the rider would not move to the proper side, control of the situation passed entirely to Smith. It was his duty to stop, or to take the other side and pass far enough from the horse, but he ran straight on until he was almost upon it. A prudent man in his position would have foreseen harm to the horse and its rider, so negligence was clearly established. Picart was himself negligent in planting himself on the wrong side of the road, but the two negligent acts were not contemporaneous: Smith’s came after Picart’s by an appreciable interval, and Smith’s negligence was the immediate and determining cause of the accident. The P200 covered the value of the horse, Picart’s medical expenses, the damage to his clothing and interest. The case was decided before the present Civil Code took effect in 1950.
“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.”
Doctrine
The Court stated the criterion: “Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences.” When both parties are negligent but their acts are not contemporaneous, “the person who has the last fair chance 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.” Today, Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”
Compare: a professional’s standard
In Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997, a surgeon was measured against her own profession: whether a physician committed an inexcusable lack of precaution is determined “according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances.”
Bar tip
Negligence is measured objectively: ask what a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have foreseen and done in the actor’s position, not what the actor himself thought. If both parties were negligent, ask who had the last fair chance to avoid the harm.
Watch it explained
Kasalanan Ba ang Maging Bobo? Negligence sa Batas
Follow Forlawssake
Get the next case explainer when it’s out.
New videos and episodes come out on YouTube, Spotify and TikTok. Follow there, and the app tells you when the next one is posted. It’s free.
This digest is general legal information for education, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the decision. Quoted passages are taken word for word from the full text.