Results 71 to 80 of 147
-
January 7th, 2013 12:16 PM #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.
-
January 7th, 2013 04:58 PM #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.
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 33
January 7th, 2013 05:03 PM #73If 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.
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 171
January 7th, 2013 05:39 PM #74
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,756
January 7th, 2013 08:52 PM #75Pero 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!
-
January 7th, 2013 10:03 PM #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....
-
January 8th, 2013 01:12 AM #77
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.
-
January 8th, 2013 09:16 AM #78
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.
-
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 137
January 8th, 2013 11:57 AM #80
Daming issue ng SU7:grin:
Xiaomi E-Car