New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 147
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    17,340
    #71
    Our laws usually follow the premise that the last vehicle who could have avoided the accident (or something to that effect) is at fault. Even traffic enforcers have no sense to analyze who should have gotten right-of-way in an accident.

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    6,385
    #72
    I think both are at fault: the SUV for not yielding to traffic and swerving to the right, and the taxi for seemingly speeding at the intersection, or the area of the accident.

    But then that's just based on the CCTV footage. Like what many say, the footage does not show that the corner may be blind or that it was obstructed by the MMDA outpost, etc.

    To pick one, it would be the SUV since he was entering Edsa but not slowing down or merging properly.
    Last edited by IMm29; January 7th, 2013 at 05:00 PM.

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    33
    #73
    If this happened in the U.S. mali yung SUV. Right of way nang taxi yung lane, SUV should yeild.I have noticed when driving in the US babangain ka talaga kung pumasok ka at right of way nung pinasukang lane. The issue is not the speed kung nag yeild muna yung SUV sa right of way then non of these could happen. I guess talgang ganyan sa dito sa atin sino nakabanga siya ang may kasalanan. Try for example if the SUV is merging from a side street to the hi way talgang mabilis cars dun, cars would not yeild to merging or right turning vehicles it should be the other way around. Thats my opinion.

  4. Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    171
    #74
    Quote Originally Posted by yebo View Post
    ang read ko dyan e yung taxi is actually in the innermost lane (leftmost lane). iniwasan nya yung suv, kumabig sa kanan kaya andun siya sa gitna ng leftmost and middle lanes, pero since swerving din sa right yung suv (papasok sa araneta center) e ayun inabot.

    tanong ko lang, following the reasoning of some people here. SO SA EXPRESSWAY DAPAT PALA MAG-SLOW DOWN KA PAG MAY ENTRY/EXIT LANES????? pag natapat ka pala sa valenzuela e dapat mabagal takbo mo ha? saka iiwasan mo yung right lane kasi pag may pumasok dun at nauna sa iyo ng isang bumper kasalanan mo na? ganun din sa bocaue? sta ines? san fernando? etc etc??? e kasi pag may nabangga ka na tang* na nag-merge ng mabagal kasalanan mo kasi di mo iniwasan? oh wow! more fun(ny) in da pilipins talaga.
    Usually sa entry lanes ng EXPRESS way meron ramp/shoulder wherein the incoming vehicle would speed up and wait for clear path before entering the right lane. Kaso yung iba, masyado atat. Kahit ambagal pa, pumupunta na agad sa lane na gusto nila.

  5. Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,756
    #75
    Pero kung nagkabaliktad yund Taxi at SUV ng pinanggalingan (taxi sa u-turn, SUV sa Edsa) malamang kasalanan pa rin ng taxi.(grin)

    Pambihira naman umaako ng pagkakamali pag dating sa kalsada, madalas yan turuan pa!

  6. Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    #76
    both may mali

    suv:

    bat gumitna sya?
    at siguro pinasok nya kahit may paparating

    taxi:

    obvious mabilis sya
    di pa nya binigay (a thing that i dont understand with puv drivers, nakita mo nang pasok na di mo pa ibigay hahapitin mo pa o di ka man lang mag brake...)

    a bit ot pero tibay nug suv ah....

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,958
    #77
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    we can see that the taxi had the last clear chance to avoid the accident... which i think was the basis for the conclusion for the filing of the chargers against the taxi driver....

    then mabilis pa yung taxi.... dyan naman po pumapasok ang proximate cause of the accident....
    kung hindi sana mabilis ang taxi (violation din yung mabilis considered reckless po yan). hindi sana nangyari ang accidente....

    at hindi lang basta mabilis yung taxi pero siya pa din lang ang ppwedeng umiwas sa pagkakataon na iyon....

    hindi naman kasi purkit nasa right of way ka ikaw na ang laging tama....
    sa batas po kasi natin the Right of the Person ENDS when Abuse Begins.....

    kaya sa bangaan wag AABUSO at siguraduhin po natin na tayo ang laging nasa harap (para yung kabangaan po natin lagi ang may last clear chance to avoid the collision)..... he.he.. another illegal advice.....
    I believe the last clear chance doctrine (LCCD) here cannot be applied considering that it is a reckless imprudence case, criminal in nature. The doctrine can only be applied when we determine the civil liability of the taxi driver, independent of the criminal case. The two cases have different quantum of proof and the taxi driver's criminal liability is determined not solely by the doctrine of last clear chance but on whether or not he violated the traffic laws. Although we do not know if the civil aspect is to be separately instituted or in the absence thereof, it is impliedly instituted with the crim case.

    Sec. 44, R.A. 4136 provides:

    Section 44. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. -

    (a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching or following may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of the intention to make such movement.

    (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle, or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device.

    This, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this wise:

    This means that before a driver turns from a direct line, in this case to the left, the driver must first see to it that there are no approaching vehicles and, if there are, to make the turn only if it can be made in safety, or at the very least give a signal that is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle.

    Based on the law quoted above, it was the SUV driver who made a turn so recklessly, hence, no criminal liability would lie against the taxi driver.

    If we talk about the civil liability of the taxi driver, LCCD is inapplicable because under the last clear chance, the oncoming vehicle must have sufficient opportunity to see the negligence of the SUV. There is no such opportunity. Taking that into consideration and in conjunction with the SUV's recklessness, the doctrine applicable would, at best, be that of contributory negligence.

    Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, although as a rule, the SUV cannot recover any from the taxi driver, the court may determine whether or not there is ground to mitigate the taxi driver's liability or absolve him.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    17,340
    #78
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    I believe the last clear chance doctrine (LCCD) here cannot be applied considering that it is a reckless imprudence case, criminal in nature. The doctrine can only be applied when we determine the civil liability of the taxi driver, independent of the criminal case. The two cases have different quantum of proof and the taxi driver's criminal liability is determined not solely by the doctrine of last clear chance but on whether or not he violated the traffic laws. Although we do not know if the civil aspect is to be separately instituted or in the absence thereof, it is impliedly instituted with the crim case.

    Sec. 44, R.A. 4136 provides:

    Section 44. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. -

    (a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching or following may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of the intention to make such movement.

    (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle, or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device.

    This, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this wise:

    This means that before a driver turns from a direct line, in this case to the left, the driver must first see to it that there are no approaching vehicles and, if there are, to make the turn only if it can be made in safety, or at the very least give a signal that is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle.

    Based on the law quoted above, it was the SUV driver who made a turn so recklessly, hence, no criminal liability would lie against the taxi driver.

    If we talk about the civil liability of the taxi driver, LCCD is inapplicable because under the last clear chance, the oncoming vehicle must have sufficient opportunity to see the negligence of the SUV. There is no such opportunity. Taking that into consideration and in conjunction with the SUV's recklessness, the doctrine applicable would, at best, be that of contributory negligence.

    Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, although as a rule, the SUV cannot recover any from the taxi driver, the court may determine whether or not there is ground to mitigate the taxi driver's liability or absolve him.
    Good explanation

    If i got this correctly, Yebo's argument earlier in the thread, and my argument against the MMDA TE and the unmarked back-up vehicle i got into an accident with before has good basis (i'm on EDSA and the vehicle i tangled with went straight out of the u-turn slot at considerable speed and blocked the entire two lanes under the flyover, without slowing down)?
    Last edited by vinj; January 8th, 2013 at 09:18 AM.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    10,820
    #79
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    I believe the last clear chance doctrine (LCCD) here cannot be applied considering that it is a reckless imprudence case, criminal in nature. The doctrine can only be applied when we determine the civil liability of the taxi driver, independent of the criminal case. The two cases have different quantum of proof and the taxi driver's criminal liability is determined not solely by the doctrine of last clear chance but on whether or not he violated the traffic laws. Although we do not know if the civil aspect is to be separately instituted or in the absence thereof, it is impliedly instituted with the crim case.

    Sec. 44, R.A. 4136 provides:

    Section 44. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. -

    (a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching or following may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of the intention to make such movement.

    (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle, or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device.

    This, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this wise:

    This means that before a driver turns from a direct line, in this case to the left, the driver must first see to it that there are no approaching vehicles and, if there are, to make the turn only if it can be made in safety, or at the very least give a signal that is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle.

    Based on the law quoted above, it was the SUV driver who made a turn so recklessly, hence, no criminal liability would lie against the taxi driver.

    If we talk about the civil liability of the taxi driver, LCCD is inapplicable because under the last clear chance, the oncoming vehicle must have sufficient opportunity to see the negligence of the SUV. There is no such opportunity. Taking that into consideration and in conjunction with the SUV's recklessness, the doctrine applicable would, at best, be that of contributory negligence.

    Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, although as a rule, the SUV cannot recover any from the taxi driver, the court may determine whether or not there is ground to mitigate the taxi driver's liability or absolve him.
    thank you.

  10. Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    137
    #80
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    I believe the last clear chance doctrine (LCCD) here cannot be applied considering that it is a reckless imprudence case, criminal in nature. The doctrine can only be applied when we determine the civil liability of the taxi driver, independent of the criminal case. The two cases have different quantum of proof and the taxi driver's criminal liability is determined not solely by the doctrine of last clear chance but on whether or not he violated the traffic laws. Although we do not know if the civil aspect is to be separately instituted or in the absence thereof, it is impliedly instituted with the crim case.

    Sec. 44, R.A. 4136 provides:

    Section 44. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. -

    (a) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement, shall give a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching or following may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles of the intention to make such movement.

    (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle, or by an approved mechanical or electrical signal device.

    This, the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this wise:

    This means that before a driver turns from a direct line, in this case to the left, the driver must first see to it that there are no approaching vehicles and, if there are, to make the turn only if it can be made in safety, or at the very least give a signal that is plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle.

    Based on the law quoted above, it was the SUV driver who made a turn so recklessly, hence, no criminal liability would lie against the taxi driver.

    If we talk about the civil liability of the taxi driver, LCCD is inapplicable because under the last clear chance, the oncoming vehicle must have sufficient opportunity to see the negligence of the SUV. There is no such opportunity. Taking that into consideration and in conjunction with the SUV's recklessness, the doctrine applicable would, at best, be that of contributory negligence.

    Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, although as a rule, the SUV cannot recover any from the taxi driver, the court may determine whether or not there is ground to mitigate the taxi driver's liability or absolve him.
    I hope na marming maenlighten sa mga kababayang natin nagmamaneho sa langsangan ;-) .

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
pag salpok ng taxi sa suv, sino may mali?