LAMBERT v HEIRS OF CASTILLON [G.R. No. 160709. February 23, 2005.] NELEN LAMBERT, assisted by her husband,
GLENROY ALOYSIUS LAMBERT, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON, Represented by MARILOU T. CASTILLON and
SERGIO LABANG, respondents.
FACTS:
In the evening of January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon visited the house of his brother Joel Castillon at Tambo, Iligan City and borrowed his motorcycle. He then invited his friend, Sergio Labang, to roam around Iligan City. Ray drove the motorcycle with Sergio as the backrider.
At around past 10:00 p.m., after eating supper at Hona's Restaurant and imbibing a bottle of beer, they traversed the highway towards Tambo at a high speed. Upon reaching Brgy. Sto. Rosario, they figured in an accident with a Tamaraw jeepney, owned by petitioner Nelen Lambert and driven by Reynaldo Gamot, which was traveling on the same direction but made a sudden left turn. The incident resulted in the instantaneous death of Ray and injuries to Sergio.
Respondents, the heirs of Ray Castillon, thus filed an action for damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against the petitioner Nelen Lambert.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: rendered a decision in favor of herein private respondents but reduced petitioner's liability by 20% in view of the contributory negligence of Ray
(2) CA: affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether Lambert is liable for damages
RULING:
Yes.
It is apparent that Reynaldo Gamot did not keep a lookout for vehicles or persons following him before proceeding to turn left. He failed to take into account the possibility that others may be following him. He did not employ the necessary precaution to see to it that the road was clear.
CIVIL LAW; TORTS AND DAMAGES; PROXIMATE CAUSE; DEFINED; CASE AT BAR. — Clearly, the abrupt and sudden left turn by Reynaldo, without first establishing his right of way, was the proximate cause of the mishap which claimed the life of Ray and injured Sergio. Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. The cause of the collision is traceable to the negligent act of Reynaldo for, as the trial court correctly held, without that left turn executed with no precaution, the mishap in all probability would not have happened.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; A PLAINTIFF WHO IS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN INJURY SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN FULL BUT MUST BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR. — The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant's liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. . . .
In the case at bar, it was established that Ray, at the time of the mishap: (1) was driving the motorcycle at a high speed;
(2) was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney;
(3) has imbibed one or two bottles of beer; and
(4) was not wearing a protective helmet.
These circumstances, although not constituting the proximate cause of his demise and injury to Sergio, contributed to the same result. The contribution of these circumstances are all considered and determined in terms of percentages of the total cause. Hence, pursuant to Rakes v. AG & P, the heirs of Ray Castillon shall recover damages only up to 50% of the award. In other words, 50% of the damage shall be borne by the private respondents; the remaining 50% shall be paid by the petitioner.
FACTS:
In the evening of January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon visited the house of his brother Joel Castillon at Tambo, Iligan City and borrowed his motorcycle. He then invited his friend, Sergio Labang, to roam around Iligan City. Ray drove the motorcycle with Sergio as the backrider.
At around past 10:00 p.m., after eating supper at Hona's Restaurant and imbibing a bottle of beer, they traversed the highway towards Tambo at a high speed. Upon reaching Brgy. Sto. Rosario, they figured in an accident with a Tamaraw jeepney, owned by petitioner Nelen Lambert and driven by Reynaldo Gamot, which was traveling on the same direction but made a sudden left turn. The incident resulted in the instantaneous death of Ray and injuries to Sergio.
Respondents, the heirs of Ray Castillon, thus filed an action for damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against the petitioner Nelen Lambert.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: rendered a decision in favor of herein private respondents but reduced petitioner's liability by 20% in view of the contributory negligence of Ray
(2) CA: affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether Lambert is liable for damages
RULING:
Yes.
It is apparent that Reynaldo Gamot did not keep a lookout for vehicles or persons following him before proceeding to turn left. He failed to take into account the possibility that others may be following him. He did not employ the necessary precaution to see to it that the road was clear.
CIVIL LAW; TORTS AND DAMAGES; PROXIMATE CAUSE; DEFINED; CASE AT BAR. — Clearly, the abrupt and sudden left turn by Reynaldo, without first establishing his right of way, was the proximate cause of the mishap which claimed the life of Ray and injured Sergio. Proximate cause is defined as that which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. The cause of the collision is traceable to the negligent act of Reynaldo for, as the trial court correctly held, without that left turn executed with no precaution, the mishap in all probability would not have happened.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; A PLAINTIFF WHO IS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN INJURY SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN FULL BUT MUST BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR. — The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant's liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. . . .
In the case at bar, it was established that Ray, at the time of the mishap: (1) was driving the motorcycle at a high speed;
(2) was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney;
(3) has imbibed one or two bottles of beer; and
(4) was not wearing a protective helmet.
These circumstances, although not constituting the proximate cause of his demise and injury to Sergio, contributed to the same result. The contribution of these circumstances are all considered and determined in terms of percentages of the total cause. Hence, pursuant to Rakes v. AG & P, the heirs of Ray Castillon shall recover damages only up to 50% of the award. In other words, 50% of the damage shall be borne by the private respondents; the remaining 50% shall be paid by the petitioner.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment