Title
Picart vs. Smith, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. L-12219
Decision Date
Mar 15, 1918
Amado Picart sued Frank Smith, Jr. for negligence after a 1912 bridge collision. Smith failed to avoid the accident despite warning Picart, who was on a pony. The Supreme Court ruled Smith liable, applying the "last clear chance" doctrine, awarding Picart damages for injuries and loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12219)

Facts of the Collision

While riding his pony halfway across the 75 m-long, 4.80 m-wide bridge, Picart encountered Smith’s automobile approaching at about 10–12 mph. Smith sounded his horn three times but, seeing the rider on the wrong side, assumed he would yield. Picart, startled, hugged the right railing. Smith continued straight, failed to slow or veer left, then swerved at the last moment, frightening the pony into crossing the car’s path. The car’s flange struck and broke the pony’s left hind leg; the animal later died. Picart suffered temporary unconsciousness and required medical treatment.

Issue

Was Smith negligent in operating his automobile so as to incur civil liability for the damage to Picart’s pony and for the rider’s injuries?

Standard of Negligence

Negligence is measured by whether a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances would have foreseen the risk and taken precautions either to stop or to avoid the peril. The “last clear chance” rule imposes liability on the party who, having the final opportunity to prevent harm, fails to do so.

Court’s Reasoning on Negligence

  1. Initial Assumption: Smith lawfully presumed Picart would keep right.
  2. Change of Circumstances: As Smith advanced toward the bridge’s center, it became obvious Picart could not or would not shift left.
  3. Duty to Act: Upon perceiving imminent danger, Smith should have stopped immediately or passed wide on the left, clear of the pony.
  4. Failure to Mitigate Risk: Instead, he maintained speed and only swerved at the last moment, creating greater risk by startling the animal.
  5. Foreseeability: A prudent driver would have anticipated a horse might panic upon close approach of an unfamiliar vehicle.

Conclusion: Smith’s conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent motorist.

Contributory Negligence and “Last Clear Chance”

  • Picart was initially negligent for positioning his pony on the wrong side of the roadway.
  • However, Smith had the final opportunity to avert collision once he realized Picart could not escape.
  • Under the “last clear chance” doctrine, Smith’s failure to stop or give ample clearance makes him solely responsible, notwithstanding Picart’s antecedent fault.

Special Defense: Res Judicata

Smith p

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.