Through Litiginous Eyes

I commuted home from Malcolm today. My afternoon class got cancelled so I asked if I could hitch with the leave 230 trip and I was informed that I could. However, there was a mix-up of some sort (that would be you Matt Mathay), so the 230 trip left without me (cue: I'm so wawa type of music). Anyway, as aforementioned, I commuted and it was fairly uneventful. But upon disembarking from the bus at the Alabang market, I was shocked to see a man lying on the street, looking as if he was having an epileptic seizure.

The man was wearing a red shirt, khaki shorts and rubber slippers. The accident must have just happened because only a small crowd had begun to gather around him. Two men then picked up the prostate man and brought him to the sidewalk. I observed that there was no blood on the street. So does that mean that the impact was not that strong and that he'll eventually be alright? Or does that only mean that he was suffering from internal hemmorrhage and the extent of his injuries was just not immediately visible?

I still don't know what hit the man (if it was a bus or a private vehicle). I now wonder if contributory negligence could be attributed to him, because he was lying far away from the pedestrian lane. Meaning, if he had been crossing the road when the accident happened, he was jaywalking, and if there was an ordinance against jaywalking in Alabang, then he would have been held negligent. However, even if he had been jaywalking, it could also be argued that it is already common knowledge that in populated areas, such as the Alabang market, pedestrians dart in and out of the traffic, so the driving population should be extra cautious in such areas.

But given the reality of things, I doubt that a case would even be filed. He seemed like an ordinary person with limited means (I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of those vendors who get on a bus to peddle mineral water and the like). With the way things are around here, he'll probably end up as just another statistic and by this time next week, no one will even remember that a life was lost or almost lost near the toll gate at the Alabang market.

After taking up Criminal Law 1 and 2 and Criminal Procedure, I'm almost tempted to just barricade myself inside the house and just order whatever I need online. For a quick perusal of the cases would immediately lead one to conclude that danger lurks everywhere. That just the right amount of alcohol can lead a man to commit the most dastardly act (like raping a 5 year old girl). That the littlest provocation can  make a person lash out at another (slander). That a seemingly trustworthy person will not think twice about swindling another person if he thinks he can get away with it (estafa and illegal recruitment).

And I'm taking up Torts this semester, so car rides have become a virtual exercise in pinpointing the negligent act whenever we pass by a scene of an accident. I now take a quick scan before stepping on the sidewalk, for fear that there may be an open manhole or unfinished digsite lurking around. When I was downed by food poisoning 2 weeks ago from eating kwek2x and cheese sticks from a vendor in front of Vinzon's Hall, I seriously thought about pursuing a case against the vendor. However, I began to doubt the success of my advocacy seeing that I impliedly took an assumption of risk by eating at said food stall (it sure ain't the Hyatt).

So gone are my carefree days when I could just shrug off my parents' seemingly overly cautious ways and chalk it up to merely being perenially OA. Because now, I can see exactly where they are coming from. And if I were to have a kid myself, I would also probably be just as strict with her/him as they have been with me (Nasan ka na?! Why do you make me worry about you all the time?!?). You know you're all grown up when you already see things the way your parents do.