Presumption Of Negligence: Violation Of Traffic Rules And Regulations / Ordinances / Dangerous Substance Flashcards
2184
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
2185
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating a traffic regulation.
Motor vehicle
Any land transportation vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power
Diligence of operator of automobile
US v. Juanillo
Bound to exercise care in proportion to the varying danger and risks of the highway and commensurate with the dangers naturally incident to the use of such /vehicle.
proper to take note the place, presence, or absence of other travelers, the speed of the automobile, its size, appearance, manner of movement, and the amount of noise it makes, and anything that indicates unusual or peculiar danger. Varies with capacity of the person endangered to care for himself.
Degree of care vis a vis driver of animals and street car and railway car
Higher degree of care than drivers of animals because machine is capable of greater destruction and absolutely under the power and control of the driver. The animal can aid to avert the accident in some way.
Higher degree also for the second bc automobile is more dangerous than street car or railway car. Latter fixed along rails and all traveling public has to do is to keep off the track but automobile can be turned as easily as an individual.
Reasonable Opportunity Doctrine
GR: Owner of automobile who sits and permits his driver to continue in violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts.
EXC: by a sudden act of negligence and without the other having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance , injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible either civilly or criminally
Basis of master’s liability in civil law
Pater Familias
-negligence of servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage
Test of Imputed Negligence And degree of care of car owners
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai
SUBJECTIVE!
Car owners not held to same uniform and inflexible standard as professional drivers. They refrain from driving their own cars and instead hire other persons because they are not trained or endowed with sufficient discernment to know the rules of traffic or to appreciate the relative dangers posed by the different situations that are continually encountered on the road.
Test of Negligence: omission to do that which evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident.
Overtaking
Land Transportation and Traffic Code
A driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety
Negligence per se
Violation of a statutory duty constitutes negligence
Negligence as a matter of law
When the state regards certain acts as so liable to injure others as to justify their absolute prohibition, doing the forbidden act is a breach of duty with respect to those who may be injured thereby.
When standard of diligence is fixed by law, failure to conform to such standard is negligence, negligence per se or negligence in and of itself, in the absence of legal excuse.
Exception to Negligence Per Se
Anonuevo Doctrine
The general principle is that the violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the very thing which the statute or ordinance intended to prevent.
The violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury unless the very injury that happened was precisely what was intended to be prevented by the statute.
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury.
2188
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business
