Facts: Ponciano Leal was killed on the public highway while going from the town of Pavia to Santa

Barbara, Iloilo bybeing

struck by an automobile, of which the Juanillo was the chauffeur. The prosecution contends that the death of
thedeceased was due to the reckless driving of the Juanillo while the defense insists that the unfortunate occurrence
waspurely an accident.
The prosecution presented 4 witnesses and the defense 6, including the Juanillo. According to the witnesses for
theprosecution (Labrila, Latoja, Agraviado, and son of Leal), Labrila, Leal, and Latoja were walking along the road
towardSanta Barbara that afternoon. Latoja was in the middle of Labrila (left) and Leal (right). While they were walking
andhaving a conversation, Latoja heard a noise behind them and turning around he saw an automobile approaching. He
calledout immediately that an automobile was coming and jumped to the left, colliding with Labrila and knocking him
into theditch. Leal on the other hand, was seen lying on the ground, having been knocked down by the automobile.

The defense introduced the testimony of the members of the party riding in the automobile, (Becker, Dean,
Rimmer,Hardwood, and Miller) and that of the chauffeur. All the witnesses for the defense testified that the middle of
the road wasclear at that place and time and that the deceased, as well as all others, were in perfectly safe places and
that the deceasedwould not have been killed if he had not at tempted to cross from the right to the left side of the road.

According to Juanillo, he noticed up ahead about 80 or 100 brazas some men walking in the road and that when he got
upto within about 40 or 50 brazas of them he closed off his gasoline and kept blowing his horn. He also placed his foot
onthe exhaust so he could make a noise. They were then going about 10 MPH. When they were within about 2 or 3
brazas ofthe men, the man on the right side started to run across the road. He put on his brakes but could not stop right
on the spot.Some part of the automobile hit him. At the time they hit the man they were going about 6 or 8 MPH. They
ran about 3 or4 brazas more when the automobile stopped.
Q. If you could stop going at 8 miles an hour within 2 brazas, why did you run 3 or 4?
A. I don't know, sir; I was going about 8 miles an hour, I should say.

Issue: Whether Juanillo is liable for reckless imprudence.

Held: YES. According to the witnesses for the defense, when they were about 25 feet away from the natives, the
brakeswere applied with such force that he and his companions were all thrown forward, yet the machine still continued
running,hitting the deceased under its own momentum for about 150 or 200 yards.

In view of all the admitted facts and circumstances, and the unreasonableness of the stories told by the
defendantappellant and his witnesses we are fully satisfied that the trial court was justified in accepting the testimony of
Latoja,Labrila, and Agraviado as to how the collision took place. Neither Latoja nor Labrila heard the blowing of the horn
orany other warning until the machine was so close that Latoja and Labrila barely had time to make their escape,
whilethe deceased, being on the left, did not have sufficient time.

It has been held, that courts will take judicial notice that an automobile makes an unusual noise; that it can be driven at
agreat velocity—at a speed many times greater than that of ordinary vehicles drawn by animals, and that it is
highlydangerous when used on country roads. Its use as a vehicle for traveling is comparatively recent. It makes an
unusualnoise. It can be and usually is made to go on common roads at great velocity — at a speed many times greater
than that ofordinary vehicles hauled by animals; and beyond doubt it is highly dangerous when used on country roads,
putting togreat hazard the safety and lives of the mass of the people who travel on such roads.

It is ty held that the rights and duties of pedestrians and vehicles are equal. Each may use the highway, andeach must
exercise such care and prudence as the circumstances demand. Owners of automobiles have the same rightsin the
streets and highways that pedestrians and drivers of horses have. Automobile drivers or the drivers of animalsare not to
use the means of locomotion without regard to the rights of others having occasion to travel on the highway.

While an automobile is a lawful means of conveyance and has equal rights upon the roads with pedestrians, horses,
andcarriages, its use cannot be lawfully countenanced unless accompanied with that degree of prudence in
managementand consideration for the rights of others which is consistent with safety. Negligence is the failure to
observe for theprotection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justlydemand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Negligence is want of care required by the
circumstances. It is arelative or comparative, not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the
parties, and the degreeof care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose. Where the danger is great a
high degree of care isnecessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.

The operator of an automobile is bound to exercise care in proportion to the varying danger and risks of thehighway and
commensurate with the dangers naturally incident to the use of such vehicle. He is obliged to takenotice of the
conditions before him, and if it is apparent that by any particular method of proceeding he is liable to workan injury, it is
his duty to adopt some other or safer method if within reasonable care and prudence he can do so. Indetermining the
degree of care an operator of an automobile should use, when on the highway, it is proper to take into consideration
the place, presence or absence of other travelers, the speed of the automobile, its size,appearance, manner of
movement, and the amount of noise it makes, and anything that indicates unusual orpeculiar danger.

The quantum of care required is to be estimated by the exigencies of the particular situation; that is, by the place,
presence or absence of other vehicles and travelers; Also, the degree of care required to be exercised varies with
thecapacity of the person endangered to care for himself. Thus, it has been held not to be negligence per se in a boy of
6to play on the highway, where an auto mobile came up on him under circumstances which produced fright and terror,
andthus caused an error of judgment by which the boy ran in front of the automobile.

The testimony of all the parties in the case at bar as to the surrounding conditions of this occurrence was to the effect
thatthe road on which they were traveling was dotted with simple rural folk. In his brief, counsel for the Juanillo
says:―Two native farmers who all their lives have seen nothing that moves faster than a bull cart, except on the two or
threeoccasions on which they testify they have visited Iloilo, cannot be expected to give an intelligent idea of speed of
anautomobile, train, or even a fast horse.‖

Under such conditions Juanillo being in charge of the powerful machine, capable of doing great damage if notskillfully
manipulated, was bound to use a high degree of care to avoid injuring these native farmers, who had acommon right to
the highway. A driver of an automobile, under such circumstances, is required to use a greaterdegree of care than
drivers of animals, for the reason that the machine is capable of greater destruction, and furthermore, it is absolutely
under the power and control of the driver; whereas, a horse or other animal can and does tosome extent aid in averting
an accident. It is not pleasant to be obliged to slow down automobiles to accommodatepersons riding, driving, or
walking.

It is probably more agreeable to send the machine along and let the horse or person get out of the way in the best
mannerpossible; but it is well to understand, if this course is adopted and an accident occurs, that the automobile driver
will becalled upon to account for his acts. An automobile driver must at all times use all the care and caution which
acareful and prudent driver would have exercised under the circumstances. Juanillo was aware of and is chargeablewith
the knowledge that the deceased and his companions were simple country people and were lacking in thecapacity to
appreciate and to guard against the dangers of an automobile driven at a high rate of speed, and he wasbound to
enlarge to a commensurate extent the degree of vigilance and care necessary to avoid injuries which theuse of his
machine made more imminent.

The negligence of Juanillo in the case at bar consisted in his failure to recognize the great injury that would accrue to
thedeceased from the collision. He had no right, it seems to us, after he saw the deceased and his companions walking
in theroad ahead of him to continue at so great a speed, at the eminent hazard of colliding with the deceased. Great
care wasdue from him by reason of the deadliness of the machine he was propelling along the highway. When one
comesthrough the highways with a machine of such power as an automobile, it is incumbent upon the driver to use
great care notto drive against or over pedestrians. An automobile is much more dangerous than a street car or even a
railway car. Theseare propelled along fixed rails and all the traveling public has to do to be safe is to keep off the track.
But the automobilecan be turned as easily as an individual, and for this reason is far more dangerous to the traveling
public than either thestreet car or the railway train.