Practice question
A motorist sees a frightened rider confined on a narrow bridge and has ample opportunity to slow or stop. Instead, the motorist repeatedly sounds the horn and passes dangerously close, causing the foreseeable mishap. The motorist argues warning alone conclusively established care. Under Picart’s approach, which is correct?
- The warning must be assessed with the failure to take reasonable precautions against the apparent danger
- A horn always supplies absolute immunity
- Only the rider’s surprise matters
- The ability to stop is legally irrelevant
- Any warning conclusively defeats causal negligence
Legal references
- Civil Code RA386: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Articles1173,2178,2185.
- Picart v Smith GRL12219 March15,1918 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/mar1918/gr_l-12219_1918.html Reasonable-person foreseeability test.
- McKee v IAC GR68102/68103 July16,1992 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jul1992/gr_68102_1992.html Emergency rule and own-negligence qualification.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.