(B32) LAW 104 - Picart v. Smith

Picart v.
Smith
G.R. No. 12219
March 15, 1918
J. Street
SUBJECT MATTER:
Standard of Conduct
DOCTRINE(S) AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

PICART TEST: 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 to be pursued. If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to
regain from that course or take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act us 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.
LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S): None was mentioned.
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Appeal from a judgement of the Court of First Instance of La Union.
Petitioner(s): Amado Picart
Respondent(s): Frank Smith, Jr.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
COURT CASE FILED ALLEGATIONS RESULT + REASON
Justice for Criminal action. Inflicting serious physical Acquitted at the preliminary
Peace injuries. investigation.
Court of First Recovery for damages Automobile driven by Absolved respondent from liability.
Instance amounting to P31,000. respondent killed his pony.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
 December 12, 1912: In the Carlatan Bridge, San Fernando, La Union, the Picart was riding on his pony. Before he
had gotten halfway across, Smith approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going at 10-12 miles
per hour.
 Smith was near the bridge when saw a horseman and blew his horn to give warning of his approach, followed by
two more horns as he had taken the bridge. It appeared to him that Picart was not observing the rule of the road.
 Picart saw Smith and tried to pull his pony close on the right side instead of left as Smith was moving rapidly.
According to Picart, he did that as he thought he did not have sufficient time to get over the other side.
 The bridge was 75 meters long and 4.8 meters wide.
 Smith approaches and guided his car towards his left, as it is the proper side of the road, and assumed the
horseman would move to the right.
 The pony did not exhibit fright, and the horseman did not signal Smith to stop, so the latter continued without
slowing down.
 As he is quite near, and with no possibility of the horse going the other side, Smith turned his car to the right to
escape hitting the horse, but in doing so, the automobile passed in close proximity with the pony and the latter got
frightened and toward its body across the bridge.
C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - LAW 104, PROF. TIU
 Because of this, the pony was struck on the hock of the left hind leg by the flange of the car, breaking the said
limb. This made the pony fall and Picart being thrown off violently.
 Because of the injuries, the pony died. Plaintiff received contusions and received medical attention for days.
 After the accident, the petitioner caused criminal proceedings to be instituted before a Justice of Peace charging
the respondent with infliction of Serious Injuries. However, at the preliminary investigation, the defendant was
acquitted.
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE (if applicable):

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
● ● He ran straight on because he was deceived by

the fact that the horse had not yet exhibited fright.
ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

1. WON the respondent is guilty of negligence? -- YES
RULING RATIO
YES. ● As respondent started across the bridge, he had the right to assume that the horse and rider
would pass over to the proper side, but as he was at the center of the bridge, it was obvious to
him that this would not be done, and he must have perceived that it was too late for the horse to
cross with safety.
● 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, to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away
from the horse to avoid the danger.
● There was an appreciable risk that, if the animal in question was unacquainted with
automobiles, he might get excited and jump. Hence, when the respondent exposed the horse
and rider to this danger, he is negligent.
● The existence of negligence in each case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgement of the actor in the situation before him.
● What would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must be determined in
the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case.
● Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course
actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against the
harm.
● Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision,
is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
● The PROPER criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case: 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 probably to warrant his foregoing the conduct
or guarding against its consequences.
- Applying it in this case: a prudent man, in the place of the respondent, would 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.
 However, the petitioner was not free from fault. He is guilty of antecedent negligence in planting
himself on the wrong side of the road.
 The negligence of the respondent succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable
interval.
 The law is that 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.
 Contributory negligence on the part of the injured does not constitute a bar to recovery, but it
could be received in evidence to reduce the damages which would be assessed wholly against

the other party.
 On the acquittal of respondent in the criminal proceedings: this have no such effect as to this
civil proceeding.
DISPOSITIVE:
From what has been said it results that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and judgment is here rendered
that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of two hundred pesos (P200), with costs of both instances. The sum
here awarded is estimated to include the value of the horse, medical expenses of the plaintiff, the loss or damage
occasioned to articles of -his apparel, and lawful interest on the whole to the date of this recovery. The other damages
claimed by the plaintiff are remote or otherwise of such character as not to be recoverable. So ordered.
SAVE DIGESTS WITH FILE NAME:

SUBJECT - Petitioner v. Respondent (G.R. No. xxxxxx)
LAW 100 - Tanada v. Tuvera (G.R. 63915)

(B32) LAW 104 - Picart v. Smith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(B32) LAW 104 - Picart v. Smith

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(B32) LAW 104 - Picart v. Smith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Picart v.

DOCTRINE(S) AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S): None was mentioned.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Respondent(s): Frank Smith, Jr.

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE (if applicable):

● ● He ran straight on because he was deceived by

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - LAW 104, PROF. TIU

SAVE DIGESTS WITH FILE NAME:

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - LAW 104, PROF. TIU

You might also like