Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 238 views

    Lambert v. Castillon

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    The case involved a motorcycle accident where the driver of the motorcycle rear-ended a jeepney. While the sudden left turn of the jeepney driver was the proximate cause of the accident, the motorcycle driver was also negligent for tailgating, speeding, drinking alcohol, and not wearing a helmet. The court found both parties at fault and reduced the damages awarded to the motorcycle driver's heirs to 50%.

    Copyright:

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

    Lambert v. Castillon

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    238 views2 pages
    The case involved a motorcycle accident where the driver of the motorcycle rear-ended a jeepney. While the sudden left turn of the jeepney driver was the proximate cause of the accident, the motorcycle driver was also negligent for tailgating, speeding, drinking alcohol, and not wearing a helmet. The court found both parties at fault and reduced the damages awarded to the motorcycle driver's heirs to 50%.

    Original Description:

    Torts

    Original Title

    (037) Lambert v. Castillon

    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 involved a motorcycle accident where the driver of the motorcycle rear-ended a jeepney. While the sudden left turn of the jeepney driver was the proximate cause of the accident, the motorcycle driver was also negligent for tailgating, speeding, drinking alcohol, and not wearing a helmet. The court found both parties at fault and reduced the damages awarded to the motorcycle driver's heirs to 50%.

    Copyright:

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

    Lambert v. Castillon

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    The case involved a motorcycle accident where the driver of the motorcycle rear-ended a jeepney. While the sudden left turn of the jeepney driver was the proximate cause of the accident, the motorcycle driver was also negligent for tailgating, speeding, drinking alcohol, and not wearing a helmet. The court found both parties at fault and reduced the damages awarded to the motorcycle driver's heirs to 50%.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Lambert v.

    Heirs of Castillon
    G.R. No. 160709
    February 23, 2005

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    FACTS:
    The general rule is that drivers of vehicles who bumped the rear of another vehicle are presumed
    negligent. But in this case Rey is an exception. Also applied here is the rule on contributory negligence
    where the damages to be awarded are mitigated.

    The incident started when Rey Castillon (Rey) went to his brother and borrowed the latter’s
    motorcycle. He then invited his friend Sergio Labang (Labang) to roam around the city. Rey drove the
    motorcycle without a protective helmet with Labang as backrider.

    Around past 10 p.m. after eating supper at Hona’s restaurant and imbibing one or two bottles of
    beer, Rey and Labang traversed the highway going back to his brother’s home at high speed. Upon
    reaching Brgy. Santo Rosario, they were tailgating a Tamaraw jeepney owned by Nelen Lambert (Nelen)
    and driven by Reynaldo Gamot (Gamot). When the jeepney was approaching the side road with Rey and
    Labang following closely behind, Gamot slightly veered to the right causing Rey to instinctively veer to the
    left. But at this moment Gamot suddenly turned sharply to the left towards the side of the road. Thus the
    motorcycle sliced into the side of the jeepney throwing Rey forward so that his forehead hit the angle bar
    on the left front door of the jeepney even as the motorcycle shot forward and the jeepney veered back
    to the right and sped away. The incident resulted in the instantaneous death of Rey and injuries to Labang.

    The heirs of Rey thus filed an action for damages against Helen the jeepney owner for the death
    of Rey and damages to the motorcycle. After trial the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the heirs
    of Rey finding that Helen’s driver was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the
    damages for which Helen is liable. But the court reduced liability by 20 percent in view of the contributory
    negligence of Rey.

    ISSUE:
    Whether Gamot was solely negligent for the incident that occurred.

    HELD:
    No, Rey was also negligent

    Gamot’s Negligence - the abrupt and sudden left turn of Gamot without first establishing his right
    of way, was the proximate cause of the mishap which claimed the life of Rey and injured Labang.
    Proximate cause is 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 Gamot for without that sudden left turn executed
    without precaution, the mishap in all probability would not have happened. Drivers of vehicles who bump
    the rear of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other
    evidence. In this case the said rule is contradicted by the sudden left turn made by Gamot which
    proximately caused the collision.

    Rey’s Negligence - The trial court is likewise correct in finding Rey guilty of contributory
    negligence. But the ratio of apportionment of damages must be increased. It was established at the time
    of the mishap that Rey (1) was driving the motorcycle at high speed; (2) was tailgating the jeepney; (3)
    had 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 Labang
    contributed to the same result. Considering these circumstances, and pursuant to the ruling in the case
    of Rakes v. A.G. & P, 7 Phil. 359, the heirs of Rey shall recover damages only up to 50 percent of the award
    of P611,355 consisting of burial expenses, death indemnity, moral damages and loss of earning capacity.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy