U.S. vs.

TEODOR JUANILLO and looked back and saw one coming in a road not at all
G.R. No. L-7255 OCTOBER 3, 1912 wide, with even fifty or a hundred yards intervening, it would
but be natural for them to rush to the sides of the road. And
FACTS: finding himself alone on the right hand side, which had been
the most accessible to him at the moment, it would be
Ponciano Leal was killed on the public highway while going perfectly natural for an ignorant farmer at such a, to him,
from the town of Pavia to Santa Barbara, Iloilo at 4:00pm on hazardous moment to decide suddenly to cross and join his
April 23, 1911 by a car, of which respondent is a chauffeur. companions on the other side. And it is not surprising if such
a man should miscalculate the time necessary for an
According to Pedtro Latoja, one of the witnesses presented automobile, even running at only a very slow pace, to cover
by the prosecution, he was walking abreast along the said an intervening distance.
highway, and while they he was going along, he heard a noise
from behind. Upon turning around, he saw an automobile Under such conditions appellant being in charge of the
approaching. He immediately called out that an automobile powerful machine, capable of doing great damage if not
was coming and jumped to the left, colliding with Labrila, skillfully manipulated, was bound to use a high degree of care
another witness; that when he turned around to look for Leal to avoid injuring these native farmers, who had a common
the latter was lying on the ground, having been knocked right to the highway. A driver of an automobile, under such
down by the automobile, and that at that place the road was circumstances, is required to use a greater degree of care
higher than the adjacent land for a considerable distance than drivers of animals, for the reason that the machine is
each way. capable of greater destruction, and furthermore, it is
absolutely under the power and control of the driver;
The passengers of the said automobile testified that during whereas, a horse or other animal can and does to some
the accident, however these where inconsistent with each extent aid in averting an accident. It is not pleasant to be
other. According to Becker, the impact of the machine against obliged to slow down automobiles to accommodate persons
the deceased was so hard that he was raised in his seat, riding, driving, or walking.
notwithstanding the fact that the brakes had been applied
with great force 300 yards away. According to Dean, the It is probably more agreeable to send the machine along and
brakes were applied with force 25 feet away and the machine let the horse or person get out of the way in the best manner
had been running under its own momentum for about 150 or possible; but it is well to understand, if this course is adopted
200 yards when the deceased was struck. According to the and an accident occurs, that the automobile driver will be
defendant, the machine had been running without gasoline called upon to account for his acts. an automobile driver must
for about 100 yards and the brakes were applied when he at all times use all the care and caution which a careful and
was about 18 feet from the deceased. All agree however, that prudent driver would have exercised under the
the deceased was struck on the left hip by the fender or lamp circumstances. The appellant was aware of and is chargeable
with such force that he died within a short time thereafter, with the knowledge that the deceased and his companions
and that the machine did not pass over his body. were simple country people and were lacking in the capacity
to appreciate and to guard against the dangers of an
ISSUE: automobile driven at a high rate of speed, and he was bound
to enlarge to a commensurate extent the degree of vigilance
Whether or not Juanillo is negligent. and care necessary to avoid injuries which the use of his
machine made more imminent.
RULING:
The negligence of the defendant in the case at bar
YES. The testimony of all the parties in the case at bar as to consisted in his failure to recognize the great injury
the surrounding conditions of this occurrence was to the that would accrue to the deceased from the collision.
effect that the road on which they were traveling was dotted He had no right, it seems to us, after he saw the
with simple rural folk. It was Sunday afternoon and the road deceased and his companions walking in the road
connected two rather populous towns that were close ahead of him to continue at so great a speed, at the
together. In his brief, counsel for the appellant says: eminent hazard of colliding with the deceased. Great
care was due from him by reason of the deadliness of
Two native farmers who all their lives have seen nothing that the machine he was propelling along the highway.
moves faster than a bull cart, except on the two or three When one comes through the highways with a
occasions on which they testify they have visited Iloilo, machine of such power as an automobile, it is
cannot be expected to give an intelligent idea of speed of an incumbent upon the driver to use great care not to
automobile, train, or even a fast horse. They testify that they drive against or over pedestrians. An automobile is
did not see or observe the deceased after hearing the much more dangerous than a street car or even a
automobile until after he was struck. If they had never seen railway car. These are propelled along the fixed rails
an automobile save in two or three occasions in their lives, and all the traveling public has to do to be safe is to
keep off the track. But the automobile can be turned
as easily as an individual, and for this reason is far
more dangerous to the traveling public than either the
street car or the railway train. We do not feel at liberty,
under the evidence, to say that this defendant was
free from reckless negligence. In failing to so check
the speed of his machine when he saw the deceased
in front of him to give him sufficient control to avert the
injury or to stop it entirely, when he knew that if he
continued at the same speed at which he was going
he would collide with the deceased, not only shows
negligence but reckless negligence in a marked
degree.