Scribd
Upload
352 views2 pages

Valenzuela VS Ca

Valenzuela was driving home late at night when she got a flat tire. She pulled over safely to the side of the road and was standing by her car when she was hit by a vehicle driven by Li and owned by Alexander Commercial, Inc. Valenzuela's leg was severed in the accident. She sued for damages. The trial court found Li negligent and Alexander Commercial jointly liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also found: (1) Li was negligent for speeding; (2) Valenzuela was not contributorily negligent as she responded reasonably to the emergency; and (3) Alexander Commercial failed to show it exercised due care in allowing Li to use the company vehicle, so it too was liable

Uploaded by

sabrina gayo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
352 views2 pages

Valenzuela VS Ca

Valenzuela was driving home late at night when she got a flat tire. She pulled over safely to the side of the road and was standing by her car when she was hit by a vehicle driven by Li and owned by Alexander Commercial, Inc. Valenzuela's leg was severed in the accident. She sued for damages. The trial court found Li negligent and Alexander Commercial jointly liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also found: (1) Li was negligent for speeding; (2) Valenzuela was not contributorily negligent as she responded reasonably to the emergency; and (3) Alexander Commercial failed to show it exercised due care in allowing Li to use the company vehicle, so it too was liable

Uploaded by

sabrina gayo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VALENZUELA VS CA

At around 2:00 in the morning of June 24, 1990, plaintiff Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving
a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at Marcos highway to her home. While travelling
along Aurora Blvd., she noticed something wrong with her tires; she stopped at a lighted
place where there were people, to verify whether she had a flat tire and to solicit help if
needed. Having been told by the people present that her rear right tire was flat and that she
cannot reach her home in that car’s condition, she parked along the sidewalk, about 1½ feet
away, put on her emergency lights, alighted from the car, and went to the rear to open the
trunk.

She was standing at the left side of the rear of her car pointing to the tools to a man who will
help her fix the tire when she was suddenly bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by
defendant Richard Li and registered in the name of defendant Alexander Commercial, Inc.
Because of the impact plaintiff was thrown against the windshield of the car of the defendant,
which was destroyed, and then fell to the ground. She was pulled out from under defendant’s
car. Plaintiff’s left leg was severed up to the middle of her thigh, with only some skin and
sucle connected to the rest of the body. She was brought to the UERM Medical Memorial
Center where she was found to have a “traumatic amputation, leg, left up to distal thigh
(above knee).” She was confined in the hospital for twenty (20) days and was eventually
fitted with an artificial leg.

Valenzuela filed an action to recover damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City.

RTC: Li found guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Art 2176 of CC. The
trial court likewise held Alexander Commercial Inc., jointly and severally liable.

CA: sustained thee decision of the RTC and absolved Li’s employer

Issues:

1. WON Li was negligent


2. WON as contributory negligent
3. WON Alexander Commercial Inc was liable

Held:

1. Yes. A witness testified that Li’s car was being driven at a “very fast” speed, racing
towards the general direction of Araneta Avenue. He also saw the car hit Valenzuela, hurtling
her against the windshield of the defendant’s Mitsubishi Lancer, from where she eventually
fell under the defendant’s car. Moreover the witness declared that he observed Valenzuela’s
car parked parallel and very near the sidewalk, contrary to Li’s allegation that Valenzuela’s
car was close to the center of the right lane.

2. No. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection.

Under the "emergency rule" adopted by this Court in Gan vs. Court of Appeals, an individual
who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time
to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty
of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
A woman driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by a flat tire on a rainy night will not be faulted
for stopping at a point which is both convenient for her to do so and which is not a hazard to
other motorists. She is not expected to run the entire boulevard in search for a parking zone
or turn on a dark street or alley where she would likely find no one to help her. It would be
hazardous for her not to stop and assess the emergency because the hobbling vehicle would
be both a threat to her safety and to other motorists.

Valenzuela did exercise the standard reasonably dictated by the emergency and could not
be considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances which eventually led to
the amputation of one of her lower extremities. The emergency which led her to park her car
on a sidewalk in Aurora Boulevard was not of her own making, and it was evident that she
had taken all reasonable precautions.

3.Yes. Alexander Commercial, Inc. has not demonstrated, to the Court’s satisfaction, that it
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its company car
to Li. No allegations were made as to whether or not the company took the steps necessary
to determine or ascertain the driving proficiency and history of Li, to whom it gave full and
unlimited use of a company car. Not having been able to overcome the burden of
demonstrating that it should be absolved of liability for entrusting its company car to Li, said
company, based on the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be jointly and severally
liable with the former for the injuries sustained by Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela during the
accident.

*Bonus Pater Familias - liability ultimately falls upon the employer, for his failure to
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of his
employees.

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