Case Digest (G.R. No. 237428)
Facts:
Anuran v. Buno, G.R. Nos. L-21353-54, May 20, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.In January 1958 a passenger jeepney on the road to Taal, Batangas was stopped and partially parked with its left wheels on the asphalt and its right wheels on the road shoulder to permit a passenger to alight; soon after a speeding water truck struck the parked jeepney from behind, causing the jeepney to overturn, killing three passengers and seriously injuring two others. Representatives of the deceased and of the injured (petitioners) sued in February 1958 the drivers and owners of both the truck and the jeepney to recover consequential damages.
The Batangas Court of First Instance, after trial, absolved the jeepney driver (Pepito Buno) and the jeepney owners (Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara) but held the truck driver and its owners liable for damages. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found the jeepney was overloaded and that its driver had been negligent in parking with part of the vehicle protruding onto the pavement, but nonetheless affirmed the exoneration of the jeepney driver and owners because it considered the truck driver’s greater negligence to be the efficient cause; applying the doctrine of the "last clear chance," the Court of Appeals ordered the truck owners and driver to pay specified sums as indemnity to the plaintiffs.
The petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court by petition for review (we gave due course to the petition). The petitioners asked only that the Court declare the jeepney driv...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in exonerating the jeepney driver and owners from liability to their passengers despite the driver’s antecedent negligence?
- Can the doctrine of "last clear chance" be invoked to absolve a carrier from its contractual and statutory ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)