Topic: Negligence – Definition and elements

AMANDO PICART V. FRANK SMITH

Facts:
 Picart was riding on his pony over the Carlatan Bridge in San Fernando, LU on 12 December 1912 and
before he had gotten half way across, Smith approached from the opposite direction in an automobile
going at the rate of 10-12 miles per hour.
 As Smith neared the bridge, he saw Picart so he blew his horn to give warning of his approach. He gave
two more successive warnings since it appeared to him that Picart was not observing the rule of the
road.
 Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the signals and instead of going to the correct side of the
bridge, he moved at the edge of the left side. He explained that it was because he thought he did not
have enough time to get over to the other side. (Bridge length and width 75x4.80 meters).
 Smith continued his approach at the same speed, thinking that the horse and Picart would move but
they didn’t (the horse also did not exhibit fright as he approached). The automobile passed in such close
proximity to the animal that it became frightened and broke its left hind leg. Picart was also thrown off
with some violence.
 The horse died as a result of its injuries. Picart suffered contusions with caused temporary
unconsciousness which required medical attention for several days.
 Picart filed a case for damages to recover 31,100 from Smith. CFI absolved the defendant from liability.

Issue: WON the defendant was guilty of negligence such as to give rise to a civil obligation
Held: YES

Ruling:

 The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results
to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
 OTHERWISE PUT: The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may
be stated as follows: 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? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence.
 Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is the
constitutive f act in negligence.
 A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, would, in our opinion, have recognized that the
course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm to the
horse and rider as a reasonable consequence of that course.
 It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the
negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under
these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm
and f ails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party.
 Court held that contributory negligence would not absolve liability but merely reduce the award of
damages. Here, the negligence of the parties were successive. (HINDI MAGKASABAY).
 Court awarded 200 pesos in damages (for the horse and medical expenses + interest). The other
damages claimed by plaintiff was held to be remote and not recoverable.