Picart vs.

Smith
- Picart seeking recovery of damages from Smith, alleged to have been caused by
the automobile driven by Smith
FACTS
- Picart was riding a pony across a bridge
- Smith was driving his vehicle approaching the bridge. He saw Picart, honked, and
proceeded on his course. It appeared to him that Picart was not observing road
rules.
- Picart, perturbed by the novelty of the apparition, pulled the pony to the right
side of the bridge

(note that right now, on the road, we KEEP RIGHT. Back then, KEEP LEFT pa
yung inoobserve nila)
Smith assumed that Picart would move pony to the other side of the road

- Smith kept on his course. When Smith was approaching Picarts area, he suddenly
swerved, just in time to avoid the pony. However, this frightened the pony. Its hind
leg then was hit by the vehicle, knocking it down and throwing Picart to the ground,
unconscious for a while. The ponys leg was broken, among other injuries. It
eventually died.
ISSUE: W/N Smith is liable for negligence
HELD/RATIO: YES, he is liable for negligence.
- Smith shouldve avoided the horse and moved to the right as he approached the
bridge, where there were no people.
- By this time, Picart no longer had control of the situation; only Smith had. Instead,
Smith continued on until he was near the horse. In so doing, he exposed the
horse and its rider to danger. He is negligent in the eyes of the law.
- Test: did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same
situation?
- Existence of negligence is not determined by reference to the personal judgment
of the actor in the situation. Take note that, according to the case, it appeared to
him that Picart was not observing road rules.
- Conduct is considered negligent when a prudent man would have foreseen that an
effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct
or guarding against its consequences

- NEGLIGENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE

Prudent man would have recognized the risk in the course Smith was taking,
that it was risky both to Picart and the pony
o under this circumstance, law imposed on Smith the duty to guard
against the harm
Smith was negligent in his driving; but Picart was also negligent in putting
himself and his pony in the position they were in.
o But their negligent acts were not contemporaneous. Picarts negligence
happened first; Smiths negligence succeeded Picarts by an
appreciable interval.
o Person who has the last fair chance of avoiding the impending
harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the others negligence
o But because of Picarts contributory negligence, the amount of
damages he will receive must be reduced.

RULING: Plaintiff allowed to recover damages