Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Raynera Vs Hiceta
Raynera Vs Hiceta
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
SO ORDERED.20 cräläwvirtualibräry
During the trial, it was established that the truck had no tail
lights. The photographs taken of the scene of the accident
showed that there were no tail lights or license plates
installed on the Isuzu truck. Instead, what were installed
were two (2) pairs of lights on top of the steel plates, and
one (1) pair of lights in front of the truck. With regard to the
rear of the truck, the photos taken and the sketch in the spot
report proved that there were no tail lights.
It has been said that drivers of vehicles who bump the rear
of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the
accident, unless contradicted by other evidence.29 The
rationale behind the presumption is that the driver of the
rear vehicle has full control of the situation as he is in a
position to observe the vehicle in front of him.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.