Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    PLDT v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Fregillana
    The case discusses whether the proximate cause of injuries sustained in a car accident was the negligence of the driver, Antonio Esteban. According to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence was the immediate cause of injury. The facts are that in 1968, Esteban's jeepney ran into an accident mound from an ongoing construction project, injuring him and his wife Gloria. While the Estebans argued lack of warning signs caused the accident, the court found the proximate cause was Esteban's negligence - he unexpectedly swerved lanes and claimed to be driving slower than evidence showed. As residents near the construction, the Estebans were also aware of ongoing work. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PLDT v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Fregillana
    59 views2 pages
    The case discusses whether the proximate cause of injuries sustained in a car accident was the negligence of the driver, Antonio Esteban. According to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence was the immediate cause of injury. The facts are that in 1968, Esteban's jeepney ran into an accident mound from an ongoing construction project, injuring him and his wife Gloria. While the Estebans argued lack of warning signs caused the accident, the court found the proximate cause was Esteban's negligence - he unexpectedly swerved lanes and claimed to be driving slower than evidence showed. As residents near the construction, the Estebans were also aware of ongoing work. Therefore

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case discusses whether the proximate cause of injuries sustained in a car accident was the negligence of the driver, Antonio Esteban. According to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence was the immediate cause of injury. The facts are that in 1968, Esteban's jeepney ran into an accident mound from an ongoing construction project, injuring him and his wife Gloria. While the Estebans argued lack of warning signs caused the accident, the court found the proximate cause was Esteban's negligence - he unexpectedly swerved lanes and claimed to be driving slower than evidence showed. As residents near the construction, the Estebans were also aware of ongoing work. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    PLDT v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Fregillana
    The case discusses whether the proximate cause of injuries sustained in a car accident was the negligence of the driver, Antonio Esteban. According to Article 2179 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence was the immediate cause of injury. The facts are that in 1968, Esteban's jeepney ran into an accident mound from an ongoing construction project, injuring him and his wife Gloria. While the Estebans argued lack of warning signs caused the accident, the court found the proximate cause was Esteban's negligence - he unexpectedly swerved lanes and claimed to be driving slower than evidence showed. As residents near the construction, the Estebans were also aware of ongoing work. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FREGILLANA, Katrina Dominica C.

    PRINCIPLE: The negligence of the plaintiff is the proximate cause of his injury.

    Provision: Art 2179 (New Civil Code of the Philippines)

    When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
    damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of
    the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
    courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

    PLDT V. CA
    G.R. No. L-57079
    September 29, 1989

    Facts: In the evening of July 30, 1968 spouses Antonio Esteban and Gloria Esteban sustained
    injuries when their jeepney ran over a mound of earth. The said construction is being
    undertaken by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). Gloria Esteban
    sustained injuries on her arms, legs, and cheeks which eventually left a permanent scar on her
    cheek. While Antonio Esteban sustained a cut in his lips and in addition to that the
    windshield of their jeepney was also smashed. Spouses Esteban filed a complaint against
    PLDT, the one in charge of the construction. It was alleged in the complaint that Antonio
    Esteban failed to notice the accident mound due to the lack of warning signs and warning
    lights. PLDT contended that they are not responsible for the injuries sustained by the spouses
    by reason that the excavation is the undertaking of L.R. Barte and the proximate cause of the
    injuries is the negligence of Antonio Esteban.

    Issue: Whether or not the proximate cause of the injury is the negligence of Antonio Esteban.

    Held: Yes, the proximate cause of the injuries is the negligence of Antonio Esteban. The
    reason for the injuries would be the unexplained swerving of Esteban. If only Esteban
    remained in the inner lane and did not swerve from the left, he would not hit the accident
    mound. He also claimed that he was running 25 kph, but it was proved by sufficient evidence
    that he was not running at such speed. He could have avoided the mound if he was indeed
    running at 25 kph for he will be able to hit the brakes in which the doctrine of the last clear
    chance may apply. It was clear enough that Antonio Esteban failed to observe due diligence.
    It was also taken into consideration that the spouses were residents of Lacson Street,
    therefore they are aware of the ongoing excavation within their vicinity. In addition to that,
    the accident mound was relatively visible therefore Esteban cannot claim that he did not see
    such.

    You might also like