Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    Thermochem vs. Naval

    Uploaded by

    Ruth Lumibao
    Thermochem Inc. was sued for damages caused by its vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, colliding with a taxi. The trial court found the truck driver negligent. The court of appeals affirmed. While the truck driver was negligent, his liability was mitigated because the taxi driver also lacked foresight in making a U-turn on a major street before fully turning into the other lane, contributing to the accident. The damages awarded to repair the taxi were reduced in half due to the taxi driver's contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

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

    Thermochem vs. Naval

    Uploaded by

    Ruth Lumibao
    161 views1 page
    Thermochem Inc. was sued for damages caused by its vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, colliding with a taxi. The trial court found the truck driver negligent. The court of appeals affirmed. While the truck driver was negligent, his liability was mitigated because the taxi driver also lacked foresight in making a U-turn on a major street before fully turning into the other lane, contributing to the accident. The damages awarded to repair the taxi were reduced in half due to the taxi driver's contributory negligence.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Thermochem Inc. was sued for damages caused by its vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, colliding with a taxi. The trial court found the truck driver negligent. The court of appeals affirmed. While the truck driver was negligent, his liability was mitigated because the taxi driver also lacked foresight in making a U-turn on a major street before fully turning into the other lane, contributing to the accident. The damages awarded to repair the taxi were reduced in half due to the taxi driver's contributory negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    161 views1 page

    Thermochem vs. Naval

    Uploaded by

    Ruth Lumibao
    Thermochem Inc. was sued for damages caused by its vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, colliding with a taxi. The trial court found the truck driver negligent. The court of appeals affirmed. While the truck driver was negligent, his liability was mitigated because the taxi driver also lacked foresight in making a U-turn on a major street before fully turning into the other lane, contributing to the accident. The damages awarded to repair the taxi were reduced in half due to the taxi driver's contributory negligence.

    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 1

    Thermochem Incorporated vs.

    Leonora Naval & CA


    FACTS: Eduardo Eden, then driving a taxi, parked alongside Ortigas Avenue
    to unload a passenger. Thereafter, he executed a U-turn to traverse the same
    road, going to the direction of EDSA. At this point, the Nissan Pathfinder
    travelling along the same round collided with the taxi. The taxi was dragged
    into the nearby tailor shop, thus causing damage to the tailor shop and
    injuries to the driver.
    The owner of the taxi filed a damage suit against Thermochem as owner of
    the Nissan Pathfinder and as employer of their driver, Jerome Castro.
    RTC found the truck driver negligent. CA affirmed.
    **NOTE (CivPro stuff): The petition was initially denied for failure to submit an explanation as
    to why no personal service of copies of certain pleadings was made. Thermochem filed a
    motion for reconsideration, which was granted. Thereafter, respondent was ordered to file its
    comment and was served with a copy granting the MR. A copy of the Resolution, granting
    the MR and reinstating the case, was sent by registered mail but it was returned to the
    sender. The Court resolved to consider the MR resolution as served. No comment was filed
    even after a year. The Court is given discretion to determine when the filing of a comment is
    necessary. Accordingly, by failure to submit a comment, the case shall be deemed submitted
    for decision.

    W/N the Castro was negligent YES, but his liability was mitigated because
    of the contributory negligence of the taxi driver.
    RATIO: It was established from the testimony of the truck driver that he was
    driving at a speed of 50 km/hour because it was a downhill slop coming from
    the Rosario bridge. He alleged that as he stepped on the break, it locked
    causing the Nissan Pathfinder to skid to the left and consequently hit the
    taxicab. The sudden malfunction of the break system is the usual excuse of
    drivers involved in collisions, particularly when the road is downhill.
    The malfunction or loss of brake is not a fortuitous event. A mechanically
    defective vehicle should avoid the streets. The owner and the driver of the
    vehicle are presumed to know the conditions of the vehicle and to take care
    of it with a good father of a family. Even assuming that the loss of brakes is a
    fortuitous event, it became humanized by reason of their negligence (i.e.
    speeding and failing to take care of the vehicle).
    However, there was also lack of foresight on the part of the taxi driver. Uturns are not generally advisable particularly on major streets. The taxi was
    hit on its side, meaning that it had not yet fully made a turn to the other
    lane. Thus, the sum awarded for the repair of the taxi was reduced in half
    (from P47,850 to P23,925).

    You might also like