Reckless imprudence generally defined by our penal law consists in voluntarily but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Imprudence connotes a deficiency of action. It implies a failure in precaution or a failure to take the necessary precaution once the danger or peril becomes foreseen. Thus, something more than mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle is necessary to constitute the offense of reckless driving, and a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of action which injures another, either with knowledge of serious danger to others involved, or with knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable person.
Hence, in prosecutions for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, whether or not one of the drivers of the colliding automobiles is guilty of the offense is a question that lies in the manner and circumstances of the operation of the motor vehicle, and a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely,
- that the offender has done or failed to do an act;
- that the act is voluntary;
- that the same is without malice;
- that material damage results; and
- that there has been inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender.
Among the elements constitutive of the offense, what perhaps is most central to a finding of guilt is the conclusive determination that the accused has exhibited, by his voluntary act without malice, an inexcusable lack of precaution because it is that which supplies the criminal intent so indispensable as to bring an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law. This, because a conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct is all that that is required from the standpoint of the frame of mind of the accused, that is, without regard to whether the private offended party may himself be considered likewise at fault.
“Reckless imprudence” is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing it and merely determines “‘a lower degree of criminal liability'” is too broad to deserve unqualified assent.
Reckless imprudence— which assumes “without malice”—resulting in homicide, even if multiple, is punishable by a maximum term of six years.
Negligence is deficiency of perception or lack of foresight: the failure to foresee impending injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use ordinary care. Whereas, imprudence is deficiency of action in avoiding an injury due to lack of skill. Both result to a culpable felony.
What Are Common Examples Of Reckless Driving?
- Speeding or driving too fast based on the current conditions of the road.
- Excessive lane changing, such as during rush hour traffic or on the highway.
- Improper passing, including the use of the shoulder or failing to signal.
- Neglecting to stop at a traffic light or stop sign.
Examples of negligence include:
- A driver who runs a stop sign causing an injury crash.
- A store owner who fails to put up a “Caution: Wet Floor” sign after mopping up a spill.
- A property owner who fails to replace rotten steps on a wooden porch that collapses and injures visiting guests.
What is ordinary negligence?
If a person fails to take the reasonable precautions that any prudent person would take and their actions cause someone else harm, their actions could be considered negligent
Gross negligence is the extreme indifference to or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Gross negligence is more than simple carelessness or failure to act. It is willful behavior done with extreme disregard for the health and safety of others. It is conduct likely to cause foreseeable harm.
Examples of gross negligence include:
- A driver speeding in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic.
- A doctor prescribing a patient a drug that their medical records clearly list that they are allergic to.
- Nursing home staff failing to provide water or food to a resident for several days.
DOCTRTINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
The “last clear chance” rule (also known as the “last clear chance” doctrine) is a legal concept that was traditionally applied in certain personal injury cases where both the plaintiff and defendant shared some amount of fault for the accident giving rise to the case. In this article, we’ll explain how the “last clear chance” rule works, and how it may still apply in certain types of personal injury cases.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A defense available where it is proved that the claimant’s own negligence contributed to its loss or damage. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides for apportionment of loss where the fault of both claimant and defendant have contributed to the damage.
Since damages are asserted in the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the defendant, the defendant’s contributory negligence charge involves only three elements: duty, breach, and causation. Since it is the defendant who is asserting the contributory negligence claim, he has the burden of proving its elements
The concept of contributory negligence revolves around a plaintiff’s “contribution” to his or her own damages. If a plaintiff bears some of the faults for the accident for which the plaintiff files a personal injury lawsuit, contributory negligence laws may bar recovery. The Philippines follows a contributory negligence law that bars recovery if the plaintiff is as little as 1% at fault for the damages in questions.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
Under comparative negligence law, a plaintiff may still recover damages even if he or she is partially at fault for the damages in question. Under a pure comparative negligence law, a plaintiff can recover compensation even if he or she is 99% at fault for the damages. The plaintiff loses a percentage of the case award equal to his or her percentage of fault.
For example, in a Php.100,000 case for which the plaintiff is 60% at fault, the plaintiff would lose 60% of the case award for a final total of Php. 40,000. Depending on how much it would cost the plaintiff to file the claim, it may not be worth it for a plaintiff to file a lawsuit if he or she would absorb most of the fault for the claimed damages.
Modified comparative negligence laws are a bit more reasonable and encourage plaintiffs to file cases with merit instead of pursuing frivolous lawsuits. A plaintiff may still recover damages if he or she is partially at fault for those damages, but only if his or her percentage of fault is less than the defendants. If the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, he or she cannot recover damages. In cases involving multiple defendants, each defendant would receive a fault percentage and the plaintiff’s fault percentage must be less than the fault of each of the defendants’ to recover damages. For example, if a plaintiff was 40% at fault in a case with two defendants each found 30% at fault, the plaintiff would not be eligible to recover damages.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
In some cases, a business, organization, employer, or company may be liable for the actions of an employee or the people under their supervision. Vicarious liability also applies to owners of dogs who attack people. The dog owner will face liability for the attack or dog bite even though he or she did not personally harm the victim. If a plaintiff can prove that a company, employer, or other entity bears responsibility for the negligent actions of an employee or similar party, the plaintiff may be able to claim vicarious liability.