(Digest) 2. Picart Vs Smith

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

In the case if Picart vs Smith, Picart was riding on his pony over the Carlatan Bridge.

The
defendant approached from the opposite direction in an automobile at a rate of 10-12mph. the
defendant blew his horn to give warning to the approach as he neared the bridge as it appeared
to him that the man on horseback before him was not observing the rule of the road. The
plaintiff saw the automobile coming because of the signals. However, because of the rapidity of
the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the railing on the right side of the bridge
instead of going to the left. He says that the reason he did this was that he thought he did not
have sufficient time to get over to the other side. As the automobile approached, the defendant
guided it toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for the machine. In so doing the
defendant assumed that the horseman would move to the other side. The pony had not as yet
exhibited fright, and the rider had made no sign for the automobile to stop. Seeing that the
pony was apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the right while yet some
distance away or slowing down, continued to approach directly toward the horse without
diminution of speed.

Issue: WoN the defendant in maneuvering his car in the manner above described was guilty of
negligence such as gives rise to a civil obligation to repair the damage done

Ruling: Yes.
As the defendant started across the bridge, he had the right to assume that the horse and rider
would pass over to the proper side; but as he moved toward the center of the bridge it was
demonstrated to his eyes that this would not be done; and he must in a moment have
perceived that it was too late for the horse to cross with safety in front of the moving vehicle. In
the nature of things this change of situation occurred while the automobile was yet some
distance away; and from this moment it was not longer within the power of the plaintiff to
escape being run down by going to a place of greater safety. The control of the situation had
then passed entirely to the defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an
immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other persons on the bridge, to take the other
side and pass sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of collision. Instead of
doing this, the defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon the horse.

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then
he is guilty of negligence. A prudent man, placed in the position of the defendant, would, in our
opinion, have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and
would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a reasonable consequence of
that course. Under these circumstances the law imposed on the defendant the duty to guard
against the threatened harm.
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was guilty of
antecedent negligence in planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have
already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to
discover which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the negligent
acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant
succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances
the law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and f ails to
do so is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party.

You might also like