FOURTH SPEAKER: (Carlo)

1st point: Ladies and gentlemen, human beings are considered the most dominant specie in the planet but this distinction
does not free us from any mishaps or faults in our decisions in life. This leads us to the unfortunate event that transpired
between Ruben Galang and Jose Koh. The arguments in favor of the plaintiff suggest that Ruben Galang is negligent
because he did not exercise precautions to avoid the accident but the period of time the circumstances demand from
Ruben Galang to avoid the vehicle mishap is practically negligible. The doctrine of last clear chance briefly states
that “a defendant might, in this case Ruben Galang, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party. The speaker suggest that it is unfair to shift the liability to Ruben
Galang based on that doctrine if the plaintiff might have adapted other means instead of swerving to the lane of the truck
driver as stated by the arguments of my colleagues. A study in the University of Iowa that researched about Drivers
Reaction Time in Crash Avoidance found that the average driver reaction brake time to be is 2.3 seconds (Mcgehee,
2000). This might suggest that Jose Koh has 2.3 seconds to react on the situation in front of him and must have applied
the brakes instead of swerving to the other lane where the danger of a car collision is inevitable since he is approaching
the opposite direction of what the lane of the road intended to. The judgment applied in the situation of Jose Koh is
questionable since the means employed by him increased the risk of him and his family being in danger that eventually
led to the death of the members of Koh family.

FOURTH SPEAKER

1st point:

* Emergency Rule Doctrine - “one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which
he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence." Considering there is a sudden intrusion of 2 boys into the lane of
the car, Jose Koh adopted the best means possible in the given situation to avoid hitting them. Hence, Jose Koh was NOT
guilty of negligence. Assuming, arguendo that Jose Koh is negligent, It CANNOT be said that his negligence was the
proximate cause of the colission. Although it may be said that the act of Jose Koh, if at all negligent, was the intiial act in
the chain of events, it CANNOT be said that the same caused the eventual injuries & deaths because of the occurrence of
a sufficient intervening event, the negligent act of the truck driver, which was the actual cause of the tragedy. The entry of
the car into the lane of the truck WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THE COLLISION had the latter heeded the
emergency signals given by the former to slow down & give the car an opportunity to go back into its proper lane. Instead
of slowing down and swerving to the far right of the road (supposedly the proper precautionary measure under the given
circumstances, the truck driver continued at full speed towards the car.”

Rebuttal: The means adopted by Jose Koh is not the best means possible considering that when he invaded the
lane of the truck it increased the risk of their safety. Instead of adopting means to consider the safety of his family, Jose
Koh went to the other lane of the road without considering that there is another vehicle which might collide with the Ford
Escort and cause their inevitable death.

Question form of the Rebuttal for the cross-examination:

Counterargument:

2nd point:

* Doctrine of Last Clear Chance - A doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party
injured will NOT defeat the claim for damages if it shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the
last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof.

Rebuttal: It is not correct to say that Ruben Galang is solely liable because of the doctrine of Last Clear Chance.
There is contributory negligence in this case since the initial cause of the accident is the act of Jose Koh to invade the
lane of the truck. There was only 10 meters when the driver of the truck saw that the Ford Escort is approaching him in his
lane, in that case negligence is not only attributed solely to Ruben Galang and both of the parties are responsible for the
losses
Question form of the Rebuttal for the cross-examination:

Counterargument: