Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cang V Cullen

    Uploaded by

    rgtan3
    263 views1 page
    Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was riding a motorcycle without a helmet, veered into Nardo's lane and bumped into him. Saycon claims Nardo sideswiped him, but Nardo says Saycon caused the accident. Cullen, Saycon's employer, paid his hospital bills and is now suing Nardo and the taxi owner for damages. The court dismissed the case initially but was overruled on appeal. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of Nardo, ruling that Saycon was negligent for driving alone with just a student permit and not wearing a helmet. The Court also found Cullen negligent for improperly supervising Saycon.

    Original Description:

    Cang v Cullen

    Original Title

    Cang v Cullen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was riding a motorcycle without a helmet, veered into Nardo's lane and bumped into him. Saycon claims Nardo sideswiped him, but Nardo says Saycon caused the accident. Cullen, Saycon's employer, paid his hospital bills and is now suing Nardo and the taxi owner for damages. The court dismissed the case initially but was overruled on appeal. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of Nardo, ruling that Saycon was negligent for driving alone with just a student permit and not wearing a helmet. The Court also found Cullen negligent for improperly supervising Saycon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    263 views1 page

    Cang V Cullen

    Uploaded by

    rgtan3
    Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was riding a motorcycle without a helmet, veered into Nardo's lane and bumped into him. Saycon claims Nardo sideswiped him, but Nardo says Saycon caused the accident. Cullen, Saycon's employer, paid his hospital bills and is now suing Nardo and the taxi owner for damages. The court dismissed the case initially but was overruled on appeal. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of Nardo, ruling that Saycon was negligent for driving alone with just a student permit and not wearing a helmet. The Court also found Cullen negligent for improperly supervising Saycon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Facts:

    Nardo was operating a taxi when Saycon, who was travelling on a motorcycle
    without protective headgear, veered into his lane and bumped him. After the impact, Nardo
    drove back to help Saycon, two traffic enforcers ordered Nardo to take Saycon to the hospital.
    No sketch of the accident was done by the enforcers. Saycon claims that it was Nardo that
    sideswept him and that Nardo tried to speed away until he was flagged down by peace officers.

    Cullen, the employer of Saycon, shouldered the hospital expenses of Saycon and is now
    claiming damages from Nardo and Cang, the owner of the taxi. The RTC dismissed the case
    stating that Cullen is not entitled to damages. The CA reversed the RTC decision claiming that
    the RTC did not give credit to a witness’ account of the accident.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the CA erred in awarding damages to respondent

    Ruling:
    YES. Saycon was operating the motor vehicle as a student-driver without being accompanied
    by a duly licensed driver. Article 2185 provides that it is presumed that a person driving a motor
    vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
    Negligence is conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others. It is the failure to observe
    that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly demand.

    To determine whether there is negligence in a given situation, the Supreme Court laid down
    this test: Did 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, the
    person is guilty of negligence. Saycon was negligent since he should not have been driving
    alone. The law requires that the holder of a student-driver’s permit should be accompanied by
    a duly licensed driver when operating a motor vehicle. Further, he was not wearing a helmet
    and he was speeding. All these prove that he was negligent.

    Neither can Cullen as Saycon’s employer be entitled to claim damages. Cullen was negligent in
    the selection and supervision of her employee. When an employee causes damage due to his
    own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption
    that his employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good
    father of a family. The fact that Saycon was driving alone is proof enough that Cullen was
    negligent. Either she did not know that he only had a student’s permit or she allowed him to
    drive alone knowing this deficiency.

    You might also like