Scribd
Upload
67 views

Picart Vs Smith, Jr. Facts

Picart sued Smith for damages after Smith's car collided with Picart's horse on a bridge, killing the horse and injuring Picart. The court ruled that Smith was negligent because as the driver of the car, he had control over the situation and could have stopped or passed further from the horse to avoid danger, but instead drove straight at the horse until he was upon it, frightening it and causing it to jump. The court found Smith civilly liable to Picart for his negligence.

Uploaded by

Mulberry Hernandez Raz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views

Picart Vs Smith, Jr. Facts

Picart sued Smith for damages after Smith's car collided with Picart's horse on a bridge, killing the horse and injuring Picart. The court ruled that Smith was negligent because as the driver of the car, he had control over the situation and could have stopped or passed further from the horse to avoid danger, but instead drove straight at the horse until he was upon it, frightening it and causing it to jump. The court found Smith civilly liable to Picart for his negligence.

Uploaded by

Mulberry Hernandez Raz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1. PICART vs SMITH, JR.

FACTS:

This is an action for recovery of damages filed by Amado Picart against Frank Smith, Jr. before
the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union.

Picart was riding on his pony over Carlatan Bridge at San Fernando, La Union, while Smith was
riding his automobile from the opposite direction. Picart saw Smith’s automobile approaching;
however, he improperly pulled his pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the
bridge. Smith, on the other hand, guided his automobile toward Picart without diminution of
speed. It was when he had gotten near the horse that Smith quickly turned his car to the right to
avoid hitting the animal. In so doing, Smith’s car passed so closely to the horse making the said
animal frightened and jumped, causing its death. Picart also sustained injuries.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Smith was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to his civil obligation.

RULING:

The Court ruled in the affirmative.

In this case, it was Smith who has the control of the situation. He has either the chance to bring
his car to an immediate stop or to pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of
collision. However, Smith chose to run straight on until he was almost upon the horse . In view of
the known nature of horses, if the animal in question was unaccustomed with automobiles, he
might get excited and jump just like what happened in this case. When Smith exposed the horse
and Picart to this danger he was, according to the Court, negligent in the eye of the law. Thus,
Smith was civilly liable to Picart.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy