Picart v. Smith

On 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 to twelve miles per hour. Smith blew his horn several times. Picart, perturbed, pulled the pony to the railing on the right side, which was the wrong side, instead of moving to the left. Smith kept to his proper side, assuming the rider would cross over. Seeing that the pony appeared quiet, he neither slowed down nor veered away while still some distance off. When he was quite near, and the horse could no longer cross, he swerved to the right. The car passed so close that the frightened pony turned across the bridge and was struck on its left hind leg. The horse fell and later died, and Picart was thrown off, suffered contusions and was temporarily unconscious. Picart sued for P31,000 in damages. The CFI of La Union absolved Smith, and Picart appealed. Smith also pleaded that a criminal complaint against him had been dismissed by a justice of the peace at the preliminary investigation.

1. 1Whether Smith was negligent in the way he drove his car past the horse, so as to be liable for damages.
2. 2Whether Picart's own negligence in staying on the wrong side of the bridge bars his recovery.
3. 3Whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint at the preliminary investigation bars the civil action.

Yes to the first; no to the second and third. The judgment was reversed. The test is whether the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, used the care that a prudent person would have used in the same situation. If not, he is negligent. The standard is the discreet paterfamilias of Roman law, not the actor's personal judgment: "Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist." Conduct is 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." Once Smith saw that the rider would not cross over, control passed entirely to him; he should have stopped or passed well away from the horse. Given the known nature of horses, running straight at it was negligent. Picart was also negligent in planting himself on the wrong side, but the two negligent acts were not contemporaneous. Smith's negligence came an appreciable interval later. In such a case, "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." Smith's negligence was the immediate and determining cause, so the Court declined to apportion damages as in Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co. The dismissal of the criminal complaint at the preliminary hearing has no effect on the civil action. Picart was awarded P200 with costs (horse, medical expenses, clothing and interest); other damages were too remote.