Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12219)
Facts:
Amado Picart v. Frank Smith, Jr., G.R. No. 12219. March 15, 1918, the Supreme Court En Banc, Street, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant Amado Picart sued defendant-appellee Frank Smith, Jr. for P31,100 as damages allegedly caused by an automobile driven by Smith. The accident occurred December 12, 1912, on the Carlatan Bridge at San Fernando, La Union. Picart was riding his pony across the bridge when Smith approached in an automobile at about ten to twelve miles per hour, blew his horn as a warning, and continued onto the bridge. The bridge measured about 75 meters long and 4.80 meters wide.As Smith progressed he steered toward his left (the proper side) assuming the rider would move over, blew additional warning blasts, and maintained speed instead of slowing or veering far right. Picart, startled, had kept his pony close to the right-hand railing because he thought he lacked time to cross; the pony showed no initial fright. When Smith was close enough that the pony could not safely cross, he abruptly turned his car to the right to avoid a direct collision. The car, however, passed so near the pony that the animal became frightened, turned across the bridge, suffered a broken left hind hock from the car flange, fell, and later died; Picart was thrown, suffered contusions and temporary unconsciousness, and needed medical attention.
At the Court of First Instance of La Union the defendant was absolved from liability; Picart appealed to the Supreme Court. In his answer Smith pleaded, among other defenses, that the matter had been previously adjudicated — he had been discharged at the preliminary investigation before a justice of the peace in a criminal complaint ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the dismissal of the criminal proceeding at the preliminary investigation before a justice of the peace operate as res judicata to bar the civil action?
- Was the defendant negligent in operating the automobile so as to be civilly liable for the injuries to the pony and rider?
- Does the plaintiff’s antecedent negligence preclude recovery or req...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)