Meritt v. Govt

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    1/13

    +

    MERITT V. GOVT. OFPHIL

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    2/13

    + The plaintiff wasriding his motorbike

    along PadreFauraUpon crossing Taft

    Avenue and whenhe was ten feet fromthe southwestern

    intersection of saidstreets

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    3/13

    +

    An Ambulance of the PGH suddenly

    appeared

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    4/13

    +

    The Ambulance

    instead of turning toward thesouth, after passing the centerthereof, so that it would be on the

    left side of said avenue, as isprescribed by the ordinance andthe Motor Vehicle Act, turnedsuddenly and unexpectedly

    long before reaching the center of

    the street, into the right side of TaftAvenue, without having soundedany whistle or horn,.

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    5/13

    +

    by which movement it struck the

    plaintiff, who was already six feetfrom the southwestern point or fromthe post place there

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    6/13

    +By reason of the resultingcollision, the plaintiff wasseverely injured

    according to Dr. Saleeby,he suffered from adepression in the leftparietal region, a would in

    the same place and in theback part of his head,while blood issued fromhis nose and he was

    entirely unconscious.he had one or morefractures of the skull andthat the grey matter andbrain was had sufferedmaterial injury

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    7/13

    +

    ISSUES:

    As the negligence which caused the collision isa tort committed by an agent or employee of theGovernment, the inquiry at once arises whetherthe Government can be sued?

    And WON the Government can be legally-liablefor the damages resulting therefrom?

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    8/13

    +

    Yes, the plaintiff can sue the

    government It is the general rule that the Insular Government (the defendant)

    cannot be sued by an individual without its consent. It is alsoadmitted that the instant case is one against the Government.

    In the United States the rule that the state is not liable for the tortscommitted by its officers or agents whom it employs, except whenexpressly made so by legislative enactment, is well settled.

    The Government of the Philippine Islands having been "modeledafter the Federal and State Governments in the United States,

    There is a law authorizing E. Meritt to sue the Government throughLegislative Act No. 2457, effective February 3, 1915

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    9/13

    +

    The Government waived its

    immunity through the enactment ofAct No.2457

    By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunityfrom suit. however, It merely gives a remedy to enforce a

    preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of thecourt, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    10/13

    +

    2ND ISSUE: REGARDING

    LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES NO, although it waived its liabilty from suit, it did not concede

    liability to Meritt

    The State is not liable for torts, except when it acts through aspecial agent

    The driver is not a special agent

    Although the accident was caused by a government employee,

    the State did not undertake to guarantee to thrid persons theact of its employees for that would subject the state tocountless suit

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    11/13

    +

    The State is not responsible for the

    damages suffered by privateindividuals in consequence of theacts performed by its employees

    pertaining to their office becauseNEITHER FAULT ORNEGLIGENCE can be presumed on

    the part of the government

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    12/13

    +

    Who are Special Agents?

    Special Agent a person who receives a definite and fixedorder or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of hisoffice if he is a special official

    One duly empowered by a definite order or commission toperform some act or charged with some definite purpose whichgives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based onacts or omissions imputable to a public official charged withsome admin or technical office who can be held to the proper

    responsibiity

  • 7/31/2019 Meritt v. Govt

    13/13

    +

    THE chauffer was still acting withinhis duty as a driver when he hitMERITT