pag salpok ng taxi sa suv, sino may mali?

[mika_23]

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 ;-) .

[stickers]

Very well explained atty. only shows that there is a very large gap between law making, law interpretation, and law enforcing.

[lowslowbenz]

Very well explained atty. only shows that there is a very large gap between law making, law interpretation, and law enforcing.

And the ability of some lawyers/lawmakers to twist the law .... (especially when money is involved) .. no pun intended.

[ab_initio]

Very well explained atty. only shows that there is a very large gap between law making, law interpretation, and law enforcing.

It's high time to upgrade the qualification. This is the reason why I do not give any policeman a passing grade if he does not in fact pass the examination I administer. They will soon have the rank of "major" so the requirement to be intelligent becomes more stringent.

Saka sa mga pro SUV since the start of this thread!(grin)

And the ability of some lawyers/lawmakers to twist the law .... (especially when money is involved) .. no pun intended.

I think we make a distinction. Lawyers are deemed advocates. Our appreciation of the law is varied and this makes lawyering interesting. Advocates convince the judge to interpret the law according to how the suitor appreciates the law. Then the judge weighs. Trial becomes so interesting when the lawyers are all prepared. Further studies, preparation, and the love for the law makes one an advocate. Hence, not all lawyers are advocate. This, the people should also know,-know the difference.

[kinyo]

Very well explained atty. only shows that there is a very large gap between law making, law interpretation, and law enforcing.

kaya siguro gumawa na lang ng simple rule "kung sino bumangga, sya may kasalanan"

[CVT]

kaya siguro gumawa na lang ng simple rule "kung sino bumangga, sya may kasalanan"

Iyan ang malaking kag*guh*ng "batas" sa ating kalye.....

(But has some 'degree' of wisdom, IMO....Here's an example,- while I was riding in a vehicle with a couple of class-colleagues in the US, in a one-way street, we chanced upon another vehicle who was driving in the wrong direction. The other passenger was egging our driver to "hit him... hit him... hit him" as we could rightfully claim insurance as we were following "traffic rules", while the other vehicle obviously was not....

17.8K:snow:

[Noel Salisipan]

I hope na marming maenlighten sa mga kababayang natin nagmamaneho sa langsangan ;-) .

Saka sa mga pro SUV since the start of this thread!(grin)

[ab_initio]

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)?

you have the law on your side. When I think of the driver, I believe we have good lawyers in the PAO. The defense is so simple...I just hope the taxi driver qualifies as indigent litigant.

thank you.

I hope na marming maenlighten sa mga kababayang natin nagmamaneho sa langsangan ;-) .

I just found it odd for people who may be similarly situated with the taxi driver to be embracing imprisonment...tsk...the law has been in existence for so many years and yet people tend not to know..."Ignorance of the law excuses no one". This is also a legal provision. It is not just an adage but a legal provision. Laws should operate to our advantage when we are in the right. If we immediately ascribe liability to the pitiful taxi driver, then ignorance, I should say, is still prevalent even in this age of the so-called modern tech.

[Noel Salisipan]

Problema, hindi natin lahat.kabisado ang nga rules, regulations & violations. Kaya pag tiniketan kamot na lang ng ulo, sabay sabing "pasensya na chief, hindi ko alam...".

Pero kung alam mo kahit basic ng mga rules pwede mo I-contest, at hindi lahat ng nakabangga ay may kasalanan at nanangot sa batas.

Kaso, may iba ang tapang manindigan kahit baluktot ang katwiran!

[El Capitan]

Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

- - - Updated - - -

Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

[gearhead000]

Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

it's more fun in the philippines.

[ab_initio]

Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

- - - Updated - - -

Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to see posts that somehow suggest that the entire liability falls on the wrong guy, If they were the taxi driver they would embrace imprisonment just like that? tsk. :sad:

[ab_initio]

[quote=El Capitan;2069391]Marami talagang driver sa Pilipinas ang hindi alam ang Batas Trapiko. magpatakbo lang ng sasakyan ang alam.
Ang mas nakakabahala, marami ding miyembro ng Tsikot ang ignorante sa batas trapiko

Isa pang problema, ang batas sa Pilipinas ay parang "sugestion" lang. nasa sa iyo na kung susundin mo o hindi. ang katwiran lagi, huwag ka lang pahuli.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, I was a bit surprised to see posts that somehow suggest that the entire liability falls on the wrong guy, If they were the taxi driver they would embrace imprisonment just like that? tsk. :sad:

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, I was a bit surprised to see posts that somehow suggest that the entire liability falls on the wrong guy, If they were the taxi driver they would embrace imprisonment just like that? tsk. :sad:

[Accentnitox]

Watch this guys and post your comment kung sino may mali sa dalawa???




sa akin mali ang SUV kasi the taxi has the right of way... also the SUV should look sa side mirror muna kung safe mag transfer ng lane... lastly always when making turns when you come from the left lane, your destination should also be the left lane, not the middle, not the right lane...

also for the SUV when entering a road make sure its safe na wala sasalubong sayo at di iyong basta basta nalang papasok ng kalsada...

pero bakit ang TAXI ang may kaso ng rekless imprudence???

nge! alam mo kung bakit kasi pasok na yung suv. hinabol nlang ng taxi. being in a right of way is not an excuse to be stupid. nakitang ng pasok ung suv haharurot pa. siguro kung binanga ng suv yung taxi sa unahan. suv ang may kasalanan. pero kita naman natin na sa likod ung tama ng suv.

tama lang yung kaso sa taxi.

anu nanaman to? taxi lang kasi so sa kanya ang sympathy.
pero ang tibay ng suv. ndi man lang natinag. hehehe

[niky]

nge! alam mo kung bakit kasi pasok na yung suv. hinabol nlang ng taxi. being in a right of way is not an excuse to be stupid. nakitang ng pasok ung suv haharurot pa. siguro kung binanga ng suv yung taxi sa unahan. suv ang may kasalanan. pero kita naman natin na sa likod ung tama ng suv.

tama lang yung kaso sa taxi.

anu nanaman to? taxi lang kasi so sa kanya ang sympathy.
pero ang tibay ng suv. ndi man lang natinag. hehehe

Uhm... the SUV swerved across the middle of the road. The taxi was trying to avoid him. It's pretty obvious from the video that the taxi was moving diagonally across the road, changing lanes to avoid the SUV that then proceeded to swerve into the lane where the taxi was.

Yan yung mali sa Pinas. Since it's such a common practice, people don't realize how dangerous swerving straight across the road after merging is.

Not that the taxi driver was completely in the right. If he was speeding, tama yung kaso. If he wasn't, it was entirely the SUV driver's fault.

[darkheim6900]

nge! alam mo kung bakit kasi pasok na yung suv. hinabol nlang ng taxi. being in a right of way is not an excuse to be stupid. nakitang ng pasok ung suv haharurot pa. siguro kung binanga ng suv yung taxi sa unahan. suv ang may kasalanan. pero kita naman natin na sa likod ung tama ng suv.

tama lang yung kaso sa taxi.

anu nanaman to? taxi lang kasi so sa kanya ang sympathy.
pero ang tibay ng suv. ndi man lang natinag. hehehe

nice explanation pasok na nga ung suv pero nasa tamang lane ba siya? hirap ng walang common sense tulad ng suv driver. peace.

kahit sinong professional driver talaga expected niya or dapat sa pinaka kaliwang lane papasok dapat ang suv. pero sa mga walang common sense talagang mag memenor siya kasi d niya alam talaga san ba talaga papasok ang suv.

[Noel Salisipan]

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.

Ito na yung conclusion pero parang hindi pa rin naintindihan ng iba!

[yebo]

Ito na yung conclusion pero parang hindi pa rin naintindihan ng iba!

di kasi sila present nung namahagi ng brains si God.

[vinj]

di kasi sila present nung namahagi ng brains si God.

Nandun ata sila sa bilyaran sa labas ng Wanbol University nung time na yan.

[foresterx]

Ito na yung conclusion pero parang hindi pa rin naintindihan ng iba!

alam mo naman utak ng karamihan ng kababayan natin brother, basta ikaw bumangga ikaw ang mali.:bwahaha: sad to say kasi karamihan ng meron license sa atin di alam ang traffic rules basta na lang naka kuha ng license.