Civil Law: Torts and Damages

PICART v. SMITH
GR. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918

STREET, J.: (Last Clear Chance) The plaintiff was riding on a pony over a Carlatan Bridge at San Fernando, La Union. Before he had gotten half way across, defendant approached from the opposite direction in an automobile, going at about 10-12 miles per hour. He blew his horn as warning which the plaintiff heard. Having seen the approaching fast-approaching auto, he pulled the pony up against the railing on the right side instead of going left. The bridge is about 75 meters long and 4.8 meters wide. The defendant guided the auto to the left, that being the proper side for the auto, he assumed that the plaintiff would move to the other side. The defendant continued to approach without decreasing the speed. When he had gotten near, there being no possibility of the horse getting across to the other side, he then turned the auto to the right to escape hitting the horse. The horse got frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its head across the railing. The auto struck on the hock of the left hind leg of the horse which was eventually broken. The horse fell and the plaintiff was thrown off with some violence. The horse died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days. CFI of La Union absolved the defendant from liability.

ISSUE: Was defendant in maneuvering the car was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to the civil obligation to repair the damage done?

HELD: YES. The control of the situation passé entirely to the defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an immediate stop or, seeing that there was no other persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. In doing this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse. In view of the known nature of the horse, there was an appreciable risk that, if the animal in question was unacquainted with autos, he might get excited and jump under the conditions which here confronted him. The test of negligence is: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience. Applying the conduct of the defendant we think that negligence is clearly established. It goes without saying that the plaintiff was not free from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under this circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences, with reference to the prior negligence of the other party. Judgment is REVERSED.

MERCURY DRUG CORP. v. BAKING
GR. No. 156037, May 28, 2007

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: (Proximate Cause) Sebastian M. Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical check-up. After undergoing an ECG, and several examininations, Dr. Sy found the respondent’s blood sugar and triglyceride were above normal. The doctor then prescribed two medical prescriptions- Diamicron for the blood sugar and Benalize for his triglyceride. Respondent then proceeded to Mercury Drug Alabang to buy the prescribed medicines. The sales lady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum. Thus what was sold was Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet. Unaware of the wrong medicine, he took one pill on three consecutive days. On the third day he took the medicine, he met an accident while driving his car. He fell asleep while driving. He could not remember anything about the collision nor felt its impact. Suspecting the tablet he took, respondent went back to Dr. Sy who was shocked after finding that what was sold was Dormicum instead of Diamicron. He filed the present complaint for damages against petitioner. The trial court favored the defendant which was affirmed by the CA hence this petition.

ISSUE: Is petitioner negligent, and if so, is the negligence was the proximate cause of the accident?

HELD: YES. Art. 2176 provide the requisites of negligence: 1. damage suffered by the plaintiff, 2. fault or negligence of the defendant, 3. connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. Obviously, petitioner’s employee was grossly negligent in selling the wrong prescription. Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines. She should have verified whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one prescribed by the physician. Petitioner contends that the proximate cause of the accident was respondent’s negligence in driving his car. Proximate cause is that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy, and precedent. Here, the vehicular accident could not have occurred had petitioner’s employee been careful in reading the prescription. Without the potent effect of Dormicum, a sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that respondent would fall asleep while driving his car, resulting in collision. Petition DENIED.