Torts Cases Batch 5.docx

9. Picart v Smith 10.Allied Banking v BPI Check was cleared 11. Pantranco North Bus v Bascos Picnic 12. Glan People’s Lumber & Hardware v. IAC Drunk driver

13. Felisa De Roy & Virgilio Ramos v. Bernal Burned firewall

14.PLDT v Esteban Accident mound

15. Ong v MWD Swimming pool boy

16. Achevara v Ramos

17.PNR v Vizcara Jeepney rail track 18.Greenstar Express v Universal Robina Emergency Rule

1 Valenzuela v CA Lady driver bumped by vehicle when she was repairing her tires

2 Orix v Mangalinao NLEX accident, Fuso-PathfinderIsuzu

3 Capuno v Pepsi prescription

4 National Transmission v de Jesus Died electrocution 5 PNR v Tupang

If the plaintiff’s negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. While BPI’s negligence was the proximate cause of the loss, Allied Bank was not totally free from fault since it is guilty of contributory negligence in accepting the postdated check in the first place. Thus, the Court held that both banks should be held liable and apportioned the damage between BPI and Allied Bank on a 60-40 ratio, respectively. Family were on their way to picnic, rode jeepney. While on the road, a bus was speeding and encroached on the lane of the jeepney, and subsequently bumped it. Bus claims that jeepney should be liable because of doctrine of last clear chance to avoid the collision. But SC last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand. In ths case, the bus was speeding, no opportunity to avoid the bus. Engineer Calibo rode jeepney, Zacarias rode cargo truck. Collision. Family of Calibo filed charges. RTC said Calibo was negligent; CA reversed ruling holding Zacarias liable. SC reversed CA’s judgment. According to testimony, jeep was timetravelling beyond its own lane and intruding into the lane of the truck by at least 11cm width of space. There is also uncontradicted evidence that jeep was zigzagging; there is also finding that Calibo had been drinking shortly before the accident, leaving from a beach party and was advised not to drive; his driver’s license could not be found on his person at the scene of accident. The truck was already at full stop 30 m away from jeep when the jeep plowed into it. Calibo had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of respondents, resulting in injuries of respondents and death of daughter. They have been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the PR failed to so. RTC says petitioners guilty; CA affirmed in toto. P is liable under CC “the proprietor of a building is responsible for the damage resulting from its collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.” SC also rejected P’s argument that PR had last clear change to avoid the accident if only they heeded the warning to vacate the tailoring shop, which means that their P’s prior negligence should be disregarded. Last clear change has been applied to vehicular accidents, which is inapplicable to this case. Jeepney ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench which was an exaction undertaken by PLDT. PR’s claims PLDT is liable for the lack of any warning signs. SC said that the accident was due to PR’s lack of diligence. Evidence would show that the jeep must have been running quite fast OW if it was running 25k/km as claimed, he could have braked the vehicle the moment it struck the accident mound; he should not have run on dim lights but used regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. Esteban had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. He is precluded from recovering damages. Plaintiff’s son drowned in one of MWD’s swimming pool. MWD avers that his death was because of his own negligence. Parents strived to prove that MWD failed to take necessary precautions and that its employees were negligent but sufficient evidence belie their allegations. Lifeguard was not reading magazine, he immediately dived into the pool, employees did everything they can to save the boy. They even claimed that MWD has last clear chance, having the last opportunity to save the boy but failed to do so. Doctrine cannot be applied because no records show how the boy came into the big swimming pool. The LCC does not apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously. There is also strong suggestion from expert evidence that Ong might have dived where pool was only 5.5 deep and in doing so, bumped his forehead against the pool, of which he was stunned, which eventually led to his drowing. Owner-type jeepney v Passenger-type jeepney. O’s side: Passenger jeepney tried to overtake a motorcycle and enchroached O’s lane which caused the collision. P’s side: o jeepney was driving in a zigzag manner, and it was the one that enchroached P’s lane. Evidence show that O driver was driving a defective jeepney, its wheel detached, and the accident happened at P’s lane. DLC does not apply in this case Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision when it was owner-type jeepney that encroached the lane of passenger jeep. Jeepney crossed the rail track when the train rammed upon it. No crossing bar, lights, signages were poorly maintained. PNR negligent. No contributory negligence on the part of jeepney driver; no crossing bar, or at least stoplight, had no reason to anticipate the danger. DLC does not also apply. The jeepney driver was unsuspecting of the unfortunate incident. LV Mitsubishi van and bus. DLC applies. Sayson testified that he already saw the van 250 meters away yet he did not take any defensive maneuver or necessary precautions by reducing speed to prevent the accident. Instead, he maintained his current speed, and thus the collision took place. To add insult to the injury, he fled right away after the collision happened. an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence. Valenzuela was driving along the road when she noticed that one of her tires was defective. She parked her car on the sidewalk, put on her emergency lights, alighted the car, inspected her tires when suddenly she was bumped by another car. Li denied that he was negligent, he said he was only driving at 55kph; there was a car from the opposite direction with full bright lights and he was temporarily blinded that he swerved right to avoid the vehicle; his version-V’s car was protruding, no parking lights/emergency lights that he should not be liable bc of V’s own negligence. Police-car near sidewalk. Witness Rogelio Rodriguez-Li’s car was zigzaggin along the highway; said that Li was under the influence of alcohol as he could smell it very well. Rogelio’s testimony was given credence considering he did not know the plaintiff personally and immediately gave a statement. Li self-serving not backed up by other witness nor by other circumstances. He would have ample time to react if he was traveling at the speed he claimed. V not guilty of contributory negligence. An actor who is confronted with an emergency is not to be held up to the standard of conduct normally applied to an individual who is in no such situation. V did what was best under the situation: she stopped at a lighted place where there are people, parked very close to the sidewalk. V did the standard reasonably dictated by emergency and could not be considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances. 3 vehicles: Fuso, Pathfinder, Isuzu. Fuso was already moving in an erratic and swerving motion. Just when the Pathfinder was already cruising along the NLEX’s fast lane and about to overtake the Fuso, the latter suddenly swerved to the left and cut into the Pathfinder’s lane thereby blocking its way. P hit F’s left door & body. Almost instantly, Isuzu crashed into the rear of the Pathfinder. Filed damages based on quasi-delict. RTC said both truck drivers at fault. Fuso truck was swerving; Isuzu was practically tailgating the Pathfinder. SC the finding of negligence of lower courts is binding. Fuso lost control, went left, blocked the way of Pathfinder which was about to overtake. P had no chance to avoid the truck. It was really negligent of F to abruptly hit the brake in a major highway wherein vehicles are highly likely to be at his rear. Isuzu was also without fault, the smashed front of Isuzu clearly indicates the strong impact of ramming the rear of the Pathfinder. Isuzu’s driver admitted that despite stepping on the brakes, the Isuzu still suddenly smashed. Clearly the Isuzu was not within the safe stopping distance to avoid P in case of emergency. Emergency Rule will not apply. Isuzu’s dirver should have been prudent to reduce his speed and increase his distance from P. Had he done so, it would be improbable for him to have hit the vehicle in front of him or if he really could not avoid hitting it, prevent such extensive wreck to the vehicle. Vehicular collision between a Pepsi-Cola truck and a private car. Elordi (driver of pepsi) was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence. The information was subsequently amended to include claims for damages. While criminal case was pending, the estate of Buan spouses filed action for damages against Pepsi and Elordi. Parties entered into compromise settlement for estate of Buan to give up its claims for damages. When criminal case was pending, Elordi was acquitted. Prior thereto, appellants commenced civil action for dmages against Pepsi and Elordi, motion to dismiss based on prescription. SC: Recover of damages based on quasi delict must be instituted within 4 years. Appellants originally sought to enforce their claim ex-delicto, disallowed when they did not appeal from the court’s order. Civil action for damages could have been commenced immediately upon the death of decedent Capuno, but the complaint was only filed after the lapse of more than 5 years. Appellant’s contention that the 4 year prescription was interrupted by the filing of criminal action inasmuch as they had neither waived the civil action nor reserved the right to institute it separately. Such reservation was not then necessary; without having made it they could file—as in fact they did—a separate civil action even during the pendency of the criminal case. The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on quasi-delict. In this case, it was too late because action had prescribed. Baby John De Jesus died due to electrocution while performing a hotspot correction due to negligence of Danilo Manahan who was assigned to supervise a task he was not familiar with ie proper work sequence and coordination required. NTC says accident was due to Jesus fault and that it exercised diligence of a good father of a family. SC said NTC failed to overcome presumption by presenting convincing proof that it exercised care and diligence. SC agrees that failure on the part of De Jesus to use the required protective equipment was an act of negligence contributory to that unfortunate incident which led to his untimely death. Passenger fell off the train. Overcrowded. PNR negligent. The train was so overcrowded that he and many other passengers had no choice but

to sit on the open platforms between the coaches of the train. The train did not even slow down when it approached the Iyam Bridge which was under repair at the time. Neither did it stop, despite the alarm raised by other passengers that a person had fallen off the train at Iyam Bridge. Death or injury of passenger gives rise to the presumption that it is negligent; failed to overcome such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence. While PNR failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train; he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. 6 Rakes v Atlantic 7 Taylor v Manila 8 Bernal v Tacloban Electric Ice Plant Girl fell into ditch of hot water 9 Jarco Marketing Corp v Aguilar 2nd floor department store

10 Napocor v Casionan Pocket miner carrying bamboo electrocuted by NPC transmission lines dangling 810 ft above

11 Cadiente v Macas Kid standing on uncemented part, ran over

Religious procession on the street. An automobile appeared out of nowhere, frightened the child, ran and fell into a ditch with hot water. The mother and her child had a perfect right to be on the principal street of Tacloban on the evening when the religious procession was held. There was nothing abnormal in allowing the child to run along a few paces in advance of the mother. The death of the child was the result of fault and negligence in permitting hot water to flow through the public streets, there to endanger the lives of passers-by who were unfortunate enough to fall into. 2nd floor department store. Mom was signing her credit card slip, when she heard a loud thud, and saw her daughter pinned by the bulk of the store’s gift wrapping counter/structure. Died. Jarco denied liability, claiming that it was kid’s fault for climbing the counter, that mom was negligent for allowing her daughter to freely roam. But then witness, who accompanied kid when she was brought to hospital testified that when asked by the doctor what she did, kid answered nothing I did not come near the counter and the counter just fell on me. Kid’s spontaneous declaration was declared part of res gestae (statements made by a person while a startling occurrence subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances. The counter was inverted L with not base support, not nailed, employees testified that they previously brought it to the attention of management but ignored their concern. We apply the conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence (In our jurisdiction, children below 9 are presumed to act without discernment, and thus exempt from criminal liability, thus a child under 9 by analogy, is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.. Death of Noble due to electrocution from Napocor’s high tension transmission lines, pocket miner. Before the incident happened, leaders of the place already made a verbal and written requests for NPC to institute safety measure to protect users of the trail from their high tension wires. Noble and Melchor were carrying bamboo poles, Noble walking ahead, passing the trial underneath the NPC high tension, when they went uphill and turned into a curve, the tip of his bamboo pole touched one of the dangling high tension wires. Noble fell, died. NPC said it was Noble’s fault for carrying bamboo. SC: absurd! Police found out that the wires above the trial hung very low, just about 8-10 feet above the ground, in violation of the required distance of 18-20 feet. NPC negligent, if the lines were properly maintained, the bamboo would not have touched the wires, and Noble would not have been electrocuted. No contributory negligence on the part of Noble, the trial was regularly used by members of the community; no warning signs of impending danger; and the trail was the only viable way. Moreover, that the pocket miners were unlicensed was not a justification for NPC to leave their transmission lines dangling. SC said residents were already using the trial even before the lines were installed by NPC. Although they have no permit to do pocket mining, they are also human beings who have to eke out a living in the only way they know how. No justification for NPC to leave their lines dangling 8-10 feet above the ground. 15 yr old high school student was standing on the shoulder of road when he was bumped and run over by a Ford Fiera. Amputated both legs. Petitioner contends that the victim’s negligence contributed to his own mishap. Records show that when the accident happened, victim was standing on the shoulder, which was the uncemented portion of the highway, which was intended for pedestrian use alone. The driver, on the other hand, had no rightful business driving as recklessly as she did. The victim cannot be expected to have foreseen that the Ford Fiera erstwhile speeding along the cemented part of the highway would suddenly swerve to the shoulder, then bump and run him over.