Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • University of The Philippines College of Law: GAN v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Lilu Balgos
    46 views2 pages
    This case discusses the application of the emergency rule doctrine in a negligence case. Hedy Gan was driving her car when another vehicle encroached on her lane, attempting to overtake another vehicle and causing an impending head-on collision. To avoid the collision, Gan swerved right onto the side of the road, hitting an old man who was crossing and pinning him between her car and a parked jeepney. The Supreme Court reversed Gan's conviction for Homicide through Simple Imprudence, finding that as Gan was faced with a sudden emergency of an impending collision, she did not have sufficient time to consider the best course of action to avoid danger and could not be expected to avoid the accident given the circumstances

    Original Description:

    Torts

    Original Title

    Gan v. CA

    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
    This case discusses the application of the emergency rule doctrine in a negligence case. Hedy Gan was driving her car when another vehicle encroached on her lane, attempting to overtake another vehicle and causing an impending head-on collision. To avoid the collision, Gan swerved right onto the side of the road, hitting an old man who was crossing and pinning him between her car and a parked jeepney. The Supreme Court reversed Gan's conviction for Homicide through Simple Imprudence, finding that as Gan was faced with a sudden emergency of an impending collision, she did not have sufficient time to consider the best course of action to avoid danger and could not be expected to avoid the accident given the circumstances

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    University of The Philippines College of Law: GAN v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Lilu Balgos
    This case discusses the application of the emergency rule doctrine in a negligence case. Hedy Gan was driving her car when another vehicle encroached on her lane, attempting to overtake another vehicle and causing an impending head-on collision. To avoid the collision, Gan swerved right onto the side of the road, hitting an old man who was crossing and pinning him between her car and a parked jeepney. The Supreme Court reversed Gan's conviction for Homicide through Simple Imprudence, finding that as Gan was faced with a sudden emergency of an impending collision, she did not have sufficient time to consider the best course of action to avoid danger and could not be expected to avoid the accident given the circumstances

    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 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    Topic Negligence Concept


    Case No. L-44264 / September 19, 1988
    Case Name GAN v. Court of Appeals
    Ponente Fernan, C.J.

    DOCTRINE

    Emergency Rule—One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to
    consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
    fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the
    emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

    SUMMARY

    Hedy Gan (defendant-appellant) was driving a Toyota car at 8 am along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila,
    when she tried to avoid an impending head-on collision with a car driving in the opposite direction which, by
    trying to overtake another vehicle, encroached on her lane. Gan immediately swerved to the right side of the
    road where a jeepney and a truck were parked one in front of the other. Gan’s Toyota hit an old man trying to
    cross the street and pinned him between the bumper of her car and the back of the jeepney, which also hit the
    truck in front of it because of the force of the rear impact. Gan was convicted of Homicide thru Reckless
    imprudence by the CFI which was modified by the CA to Homicide thru Simple Imprudence. On appeal, the SC
    reversed the decision and acquitted Gan based on the Emergency Rule, stating that a mere mortal like the
    petitioner could not have been expected to avoid the incident (of hitting the old man) due to the real and
    imminent danger (of head on collision) threatening her very existence. “Petitioner certainly could not be
    expected to act to act with the coolness of a person under normal conditions.”

    RELEVANT FACTS

    On July 4, 1972, petitioner Hedy Gan was driving a Toyota car at 8 am along North Bay Boulevard in Tondo.
    There was a truck parked two to three meters in front of a parked jeepney on the side of the road. As Gan was
    approaching the area where the two vehicles were parked, a vehicle on the opposite lane encroached on her
    lane while trying to overtake another vehicle. To avoid the head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right towards
    the back of the jeepney where she hit an old man about to cross the road. The old man was pinned between the
    bumper of the Toyota and the back of the jeepney while the jeepney moved forward because of the force of
    impact, hitting the truck in front of it. The old man was brought to Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital where he was
    pronounced dead on arrival.

    An information for Homicide thru Reckless imprudence was filed against Gan. Gan was granted a re-investigation
    where the fiscal moved for the dismissal of the case because of the lack of interest of the complaining witness,
    evidenced by the affidavit of desistance. The motion to dismiss was never resolved by the CFI and Gan was
    convicted of the charge against her.

    On appeal, the CA modified the conviction to Homicide thru Simple Imprudence and to indemnify the heirs of
    Isidro Casino (the old man) in the sum of P12,000. Thus, petitioner appeals to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE

    W/N Gan was correctly convicted of Homicide thru Simple Imprudence given the circumstances of the case—NO
    University of the Philippines College of Law

    RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    W/N the conviction was NO.
    correct
    1. The test for determining negligence is whether a prudent man in the
    position of the person to whom negligence is attributed would foresee harm
    to the person injured as a reasonable consequence for the course about to be
    pursued.

    2. Under the Emergency Rule, a person “who suddenly finds himself in a place
    of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that
    may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence…
    unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
    negligence.”

    3. Given the circumstances, particularly the amount of time between the


    events, Gan could not have been expected to analyze the situation and
    choose the best course of action which would result in the least harm to
    herself and others.

    4. Gan “had no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough time to
    heed the very powerful instinct of self-preservation.

    5. Damages are also deleted because the heirs waived their right thereto.

    RULING

    WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered acquitting petitioner HEDY GAN y YU of the crime of Homicide thru
    Simple Imprudence. She is no longer liable for the P12,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the appellate court to
    the heirs of the victim. SO ORDERED.

    You might also like