Costly accident

Vehicular accidents usually result not only in damage to property, but massive physical injuries paralyzing the victim for life and destroying his bright future like this accident case.

The accident in this case involves Tommy, a 17-year-old fourth year high school student nearly six feet tall and a member of the school varsity basketball team, the son of a well to do couple. He is also class president and editor-in-chief of the school manual with very good leadership qualities, intelligent, motivated and a go-getter. Undoubtedly, he has excelled in academics and extracurricular undertakings. In fact he was looking forward to his college life, having passed the entrance examinations in the three leading universities of the country. One university even offered him a chance to obtain an athletic scholarship. Tommy really had a rosy future, had the accident not happened.

The accident happened at around 10:30 p.m. along a major highway in Metro Manila while Tommy was driving his car, a red 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI sedan. He was driving northbound on the left innermost lane. Traversing on the same direction on the next lane at the right side of his car was a heavy snub-nosed, six wheeler truck with gross weight of 14,058 kg registered in the name of a well known drug company and driven by Ruben, one of its drivers. While running at a speed of 75 kph, the truck suddenly swerved to its left and slammed into the right front side of Tommy’s car that weighed only 1,450 kg. The impact hurled the car over the island where it hit a lamppost, spun around and landed on the opposite lane. The truck also hit a lamppost, ran over the car and zigzagged until it finally stopped in front of a church some 50 meters away from the collision site. At the time of the accident, Ruben the truck driver, only had a Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR) because his driver’s license had been previously confiscated when he was arrested for reckless driving

Tommy’s car was a total wreck while Tommy sustained massive injuries to his spinal cord, head, face and lung. Despite a series of operations, Tommy was paralyzed for life from the chest down that require continuous medical and rehabilitation treatment. So Tommy and his parents Lita and Lando, sued the driver Ruben and his employer, the drug company to pay, jointly and severally, actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

For his defense Ruben pointed to Tommy as the immediate and proximate cause of the accident because of his recklessness. He said he was driving on the left innermost lane when the car bumped the truck’s front right tire causing it to swerve to the left, smashed the electric post and crossed the center island until it stopped at the other side of the highway like that of Tommy’s car. The drug company also denied liability by claiming that it exercised due diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of all its employees.

The lower court however ruled in favor of Tommy and his parents and ordered Ruben and the drug company to pay them jointly and severally: P2,973,000 actual damages; P23,461,062.00 for life care cost of Tommy, P10,000,000 for lost or impaired earning capacity; P4,000,000 moral damages P2,000,000 exemplary damages and P1,000,000 attorney fees and litigation expense. The lower court awarded the actual and compensatory damages by according great weight to the evidence adduced by Tommy and his parents. Was the lower court correct?

The Court of Appeals (CA) and subsequently, the Supreme Court (SC) said yes except as to the award of moral damages which was reduced to P1,000,000.

According to the Courts, Ruben was really negligent. The evidence does not support his claim that at the time of the accident the truck was at the left innermost lane and that it was Tommy’s car at its right which bumped the right front of the truck. He could not precisely tell which part of the truck was hit by the car despite the fact that the truck was snub-nosed and a lot higher. He could not also explain why the car landed at the opposite lane of the highway. If the car hit the truck at its front right side, the car would not have landed on the opposite side but would have been thrown to the right of the highway. An expert in physics who was presented as a witness said that if a vehicle ten times lighter hit the right side of the heavy vehicle, it would be at the right side and not the other way around. Thus there is very little chance that the car will move towards the opposite side i.e. to the left of the truck. Worse still is that Ruben admitted that after the impact, he lost control and failed to apply the brakes. Considering that the car was smaller and very much lighter, it could not have possibly caused Ruben to lose control of the truck and step on the brakes. Here the truck even stopped only after travelling 50 meters more. So Ruben’s negligence is really the direct and proximate cause of Tommy’s injuries.

As to the liability of the drug company, Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides the obligation to pay for the damage caused is demandable also from the employer of Ruben. Its liability is direct immediate, joint and solidary unless it proves the exercise of due diligence in selection and supervision of the employee. In this case, the drug company’s own recruitment and training manager admitted that Ruben took the driving and psychological tests when he applied for the position of delivery man and not driver. He also said that when Ruben took the test he drove a light vehicle and not a truck. No NBI or police clearance was submitted. In fact Ruben was holding a TVR when the accident happened because his license was confiscated for prior reckless driving.

The award of P23 million for life care cost of Tommy is also based on his average monthly expense and on the actuarial computation of the remaining years he is expected to live. The P10 million damages for loss or impairment of Tommy’s earning capacity is also justified considering that, had not the accident happened, he had a rosy future ahead of him (Mercury Drug Corp. and del Rosario vs. Spouses Huang and Stephen Huang, G.R. 172122, January 22, 2007).