This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a collision between a car and bicycle. The Court ruled that:
1) Article 2185 of the Civil Code, which presumes negligence for traffic violations, does not apply to non-motorized vehicles like bicycles. Bicycles are less capable of speeds and damage than motor vehicles.
2) The bicyclist was not negligent for any alleged traffic regulation violations. The driver making the left turn was speeding, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
3) The bicyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence. The lower courts found the driver solely responsible and installing safety equipment on the bicycle would not have changed this result.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a collision between a car and bicycle. The Court ruled that:
1) Article 2185 of the Civil Code, which presumes negligence for traffic violations, does not apply to non-motorized vehicles like bicycles. Bicycles are less capable of speeds and damage than motor vehicles.
2) The bicyclist was not negligent for any alleged traffic regulation violations. The driver making the left turn was speeding, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
3) The bicyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence. The lower courts found the driver solely responsible and installing safety equipment on the bicycle would not have changed this result.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a collision between a car and bicycle. The Court ruled that:
1) Article 2185 of the Civil Code, which presumes negligence for traffic violations, does not apply to non-motorized vehicles like bicycles. Bicycles are less capable of speeds and damage than motor vehicles.
2) The bicyclist was not negligent for any alleged traffic regulation violations. The driver making the left turn was speeding, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
3) The bicyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence. The lower courts found the driver solely responsible and installing safety equipment on the bicycle would not have changed this result.
JONAS AONUEVO, petitioner vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JEROME VILLAGRACIA, respondent Tinga, J.
FACTS
Villagracia was traveling along Boni Ave. on his bicycle, while Aonuevo, traversing the opposite lane was driving a Lancer car owned by Procter and Gamble Inc., the employer of Aonuevos brother. Aonuevo was in the course of making a left turn towards Libertad Street when the collision occurred. Villagracia sustained serious injuries and had to undergo four operations. Villagracia instituted an action for damages against P&G Phils., Inc. and Aonuevo before the RTC. He had also filed a criminal complaint against Aonuevo before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong, but the latter was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charge. Aonuevo claims that Villagracia violated traffic regulations when he failed to register his bicycle or install safety gadgets. He posits that Article 2185 of the Civil Code applies by analogy. Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation.
1. W/N Art. 2185 of the New Civil Code should apply to non-motorized vehicles, making Villagracia presumptively negligent --> N
There is pertinent basis for segregating between motorized and non-motorized vehicles. A motorized vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical exertion. is capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized vehicles. At the same time, motorized vehicles are more capable in inflicting greater injury or damage in the event of an accident or collision. This is due to a combination of factors peculiar to the motor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater bulk of mass, and greater combustibility due to the use of fuel.
2. W/N Villagracia was negligent for failure to comply with traffic regulations --> N The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal judgment of the actor in a given situation, but rather, it is the law which determines what would be reckless or negligent. Aonuevo asserts that Villagracia was negligent as the latter had transgressed traffic regulations. However, Aonuevo was speeding as he made the left turn, and such negligent act was the proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming that Aonuevo had failed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was not equipped with headlights, such lapse on the cyclists part would not have acquitted the driver of his duty to slow down as he proceeded to make the left turn.
3. W/N Villagracia is guilty of contributory negligence --> N As between Aonuevo and Villagracia, the lower courts adjudged Aonuevo as solely responsible for the accident. The petition does not demonstrate why this finding should be reversed. It is hard to imagine that the same result would not have occurred even if Villagracias bicycle had been equipped with safety equipment.