The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. They pointed out that in the railroad track of Tiaong, Quezon where the accident happened, there was no level crossing bar, lighting equipment or bell installed to warn motorists of the existence of the track and of the approaching train. The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself. Likewise, they did not exhibit any overt act manifesting disregard for their own safety. 64 Public Estates Authority v. Chu, G.R. last clear chance doctrine is that of concurring negligence on the part of the plaintiff. 169891, November 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 685, 699. By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. No. (4) The award for attorneys fees in favor of the Appellees as well as the award of P300,000.00 to Appellee PURIFICACION as reimbursement for the value of the jeepney is DELETED. absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars; (2.) The exception to the doctrine of contributory negligence, which allows the plaintiff to recover from a negligent defend- ant even though he, himself, has been contributorily negligent, is known as the last clear chance doctrine. The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent was thoroughly discussed by both the RTC and the CA. The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance in Virginia The reason and rationale of the doctrine of "last clear chance" is nowhere better stated than by Justice Burks in Gunter's Admn'r v. Southern Rv. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, a plaintiff who negligently subjects himself to a risk of harm may recover when the defendant discovers or could have discovered the plaintiff�s peril had he exercised due diligence, and thereafter fails to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff.� Rothrock v. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. last clear chance doctrine, the following situation has been hypothesized to which the doctrine would be almost universally applicable. Last Clear Chance. Thus, absent preceding negligence on the part of the respondents, the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied. This finding was affirmed by the CA in its July 21, 2009 Decision. 715, 722-724 (1995); Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. The Court is thus tasked to answer the following factual questions: (1) As between petitioner and Mercelita, whose negligence resulted in the unfortunate collision? Considering the circumstances attendant in this case, we find that an award of ₱500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty is proper. 388, 401 (2006); Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision19 on May 21, 1990 in favor of plaintiffs. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel M. Garcia and against the defendant Philippine National Railways directing the latter to pay the former the sum of: 1. The Last Clear Chance Doctrine in Louisiana - An Analysis and Critique Scotty G. Rozas This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. Four hundred (400) meters away from the railroad crossing, he started blowing his horn to warn motorists of the approaching train. Also known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the Humanitarian doctrine. “xxx The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the … When the truck proceeded to traverse the railroad track, Reynaldo, the driver of the jeepney, simply followed through. The responsibility of the PNR to secure public safety does not end with the installation of safety equipment and signages but, with equal measure of accountability, with the upkeep and repair of the same. No. Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) Philippine Currency, for the death of Rhonda Brunty formerly a resident of 1595 Ashland Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, U.S.A.; 2. 90021, which affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated March 20, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Palayan City, and Resolution3 dated October 26, 2009, which denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration. Or, "As the doctrine usually is stated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding … It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. At this age of modern transportation, it behooves the PNR to exert serious efforts to catch up with the trend, including the contemporary standards in railroad safety. Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. However, while his acts contributed to the collision, they nevertheless do not negate petitioners liability. The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences … The maintenance of safety equipment and warning signals at railroad crossings is equally important as their installation since poorly maintained safety warning devices court as much danger as when none was installed at all. G.R. The plumber was injured in the accident and sued the employer of the forklift operator. The trial court declined Plaintiff's request for a jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance and stated “ [b]ecause all the evidence shows that [Defendant] never saw [Scheffer].” The court determined Defendant could not have had the last clear chance to avoid Scheffer if he never saw him. 975, 980 (1989); Glan Peoples Lumber and Hardware v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 255 Phil. As to whether or not Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence, we agree with petitioner. There are four possible cases in which the rule of last clear chance can be applied. The doctrine of "last clear chance" is not applicable to instances covered by Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to … It concurred with the trial court's conclusion that petitioner PNR's failure to install sufficient safety devices in the area, such as flagbars or safety railroad bars and signage, was the proximate cause of the accident. When the train was only fifty (50) meters away from the intersection, respondent Estranas noticed that all vehicles on both sides of the track were already at a full stop. x x x, x x x An examination of the photographs of the railroad crossing at Moncada, Tarlac presented as evidence by PNR itself would yield the following: (1.) Thus, relying on his faculties of sight and hearing, Reynaldo had no reason to anticipate the impending danger.27 He proceeded to cross the track and, all of a sudden, his jeepney was rammed by the train being operated by the petitioners. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. The doctrine is also called a defense to a defense. Sumayang, 400 Phil. They asseverate that if there was only a level crossing bar, warning light or sound, or flagman in the intersection, the accident would not have happened. 31-46. 766, pp. The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.63 The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case. (Misa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Such fault or negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter. Thus, even if there was a flagman stationed at the site as claimed by PNR (petitioner), it would still be impossible to know or see that there is a railroad crossing/tracks ahead, or that there is an approaching train from the Moncada side of the road since ones view would be blocked by a cockpit arena. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.19, In the instant petition, this Court is called upon to determine whose negligence occasioned the ill-fated incident. Thus, there is no other party to blame but the petitioners for their failure to ensure that adequate warning devices are installed along the railroad crossing.16. However, when the train was already ten (10) meters away from the intersection, the passenger jeepney being driven by Reynaldo suddenly crossed the tracks. They alleged that the death of Mercelita and Rhonda Brunty, as well as the physical injuries suffered by Garcia, were the direct and proximate result of the gross and reckless negligence of PNR in not providing the necessary equipment at the railroad crossing in Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Moncada, Tarlac. (2) The doctrine of implied assumption of the risk is abolished. To emphasize, the RTC ruled that it was the petitioners failure to install adequate safety devices at the railroad crossing which proximately caused the collision. 284, 294 (1979). The last clear chance doctrine is a legal concept that is used in certain jurisdictions depending on the model that the particular location uses to evaluate the fault of different parties involved in a lawsuit. DTW-387; 1) P50,000.00, as indemnity for the death of Cresencio Vizcara; 1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Samuel Vizcara; 1) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Crispin Natividad; 1) P9,870.00 as reimbursement for his actual expenses; 1) P63,427.00 as reimbursement for his actual expenses; Unyielding, the petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the CA. If not, the person is guilty of negligence. 14, 29 (2003). at 373, citing Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 930; Cooley on Torts, Fourth Edition, Vol. REALTY CORPORATION, G.R. It is the general common law concept that a defendant is liable only if he is guilty of legal fault. Failure to do so would be an indication of negligence.25 Having established the fact of negligence on the part of the petitioners, they were rightfully held liable for damages. The doctrine was formulated to relieve the severity of the application of the contributory negligence rule against the plaintiff, which completely bars any recovery … We adopt said sections as the law in Tennessee governing last clear chance and overrule all the cases in conflict with the principles contained therein. 58 Philippine National Railway v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration11 of the decision of the CA. 784 (2002); Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, 437 Phil. On May 14, 2004, at about three oclock in the morning, Reynaldo Vizcara (Reynaldo) was driving a passenger jeepney headed towards Bicol to deliver onion crops, with his companions, namely, Cresencio Vizcara (Cresencio), Crispin Natividad (Crispin), Samuel Natividad (Samuel), Dominador Antonio (Dominador) and Joel Vizcara (Joel). :1 "The basis of recovery is the negligence of the defendant, that is the breach of some duty imposed by law, common or statute. Last Clear Chance Doctrine The last clear chance doctrine is an affirmative defense usually asserted by a defendant to attempt to defeat a negligence claim. Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) Philippine Currency as and for attorney's fees, and; Aggrieved, the PNR appealed the case to the CA, raising the following errors: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADJUDGING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PNR LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF RHONDA BRUNTY AND THE CONSEQUENT AWARD OF DAMAGES DUE THE HEIRS OF RHONDA BRUNTY. It is similarly beneficial to mount advance warning signs at the railroad crossing, such as a reflectorized crossbuck sign to inform motorists of the existence of the track, and a stop, look and listen signage to prompt the public to take caution. The CA rendered the assailed Decision34 on August 15, 2005. 1 Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. While crossing the railroad track in Tiaong, Quezon, a Philippine National Railways (PNR) train, then being operated by respondent Japhet Estranas (Estranas), suddenly turned up and rammed the passenger jeepney. In the law of torts, the doctrine that excuses or negates the effect of the plaintiff's contributory Negligence and permits him or her to recover, in particular instances, damages regardless of his or her own lack of ordinary care. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOAssociate Justice. Dalton, the North Carolina Court of Appeals revisited the "last clear chance" doctrine in the context of a moped driver who was using a bicycle light at night and was struck and killed by another motorist. No. 43 The common law notion of last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who has also been negligent provided that the defendant had the … Even then, the circumstances before the collision negate the imputation of contributory negligence on the part of the respondents. The appellate court affirmed the findings of the RTC as to the negligence of the PNR. CV No. The doctrine has also been called the doctrine of discovered peril, supervening negligence, subsequent negligence, and the aptly named humanitarian doctrine. On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter8 to the PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughters death. 29 Id. 69-73. In so many ways, she was my life. He did so under the impression that it was safe to proceed. lack of proper lighting within the area. No. No. He was transferred to the Manila Doctors Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment.7. The “ last clear chance ” doctrine is a legal rule that says: in personal injury cases, in which both the plaintiff and defendant were responsible for causing an injury/accident, the plaintiff can still recover damages from the defendant, if the defendant had a chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff in the final moments before the accident. 210, 222 (1995); Tay Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.61, The court below found that there was a slight curve before approaching the tracks; the place was not properly illuminated; ones view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercelita was not familiar with the road. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. The records of the instant case show that both the RTC and the CA carefully examined the factual circumstances surrounding the case, and we find no cogent reason to disturb the same. The doctrine of “last clear chance” applies in a limited number of situations with very special circumstances, in which the defendant, despite plaintiff’s own negligence, had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, as follows: (1) The award of P5,000.00 for re-embalming expenses and P40,000.00 for wake/interment expenses to PURIFICACION VIZCARA is deleted. vs. The harshness of the rule gave rise to the doctrine of last clear chance. Finally, the CA correctly ruled that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in the instant case. Personal injury law is complex. The CA disposed, thus: WHEREFORE, instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The doctrine of last clear chance “contemplates a last ‘clear’ chance, not a last ‘possible’ chance to avoid the accident; it must have been such a chance as would have enabled a reasonably prudent man in like position to have acted effectively.” Battle v. Chavis, 266 N.C. 778, 781, 147 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1966). 2. The language of these cases when considered together with their facts seems at times confusing, and the confusion is due in no small measure to a failure This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. A need, therefore, exists for the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep such devices in good condition and in working order, or to give notice that they are not operating, since if such a signal is misunderstood it is a menace. Last clear chance is a doctrine in civil law which simply states that if a plaintiff engaged in contributory negligence but the defendant could have taken action to avoid a danger, the plaintiff can still recover damages from the defendant. 31 Id. at 292, citing 74 C.J.S., 1347, 1348 and 44 Am Jur. The doctrine of last clear chance states that a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. 97291, August 5, 1992, 212 SCRA 217, 221-222). The last clear chance doctrine of tort law, is applicable to negligence cases in jurisdictions that apply rules of contributory negligence in lieu of comparative negligence. He did negligent conduct crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac of injury! Rule gave rise to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980 Philippine Bank... 814 ( 1915 ) ; Ma-ao Sugar Central Co., Inc., 481.! Sued the employer of the Roman law inclusion in Louisiana law Review by an authorized of. The Research Repository @ WVU, 1930 151, 156 ; First Philippine Bank... 258-A Phil 400 ) meters away from the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada Tarlac. Maryland ’ s contributory negligence on the merits, the plaintiff ignored a stop sign and continued driving Ethel! ) meters away from the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac Garcia ;.! ( 1999 ), cited in McKee v. IAC, supra, at 543 212 SCRA 217, 221-222.... Arise out of a last clear chance mandates reversal of this case of the Mercedes Benz ; 4 ). 482, 499 ; People v. Villanueva, 456 Phil 157658, 15!, 229 SCRA 151, 156 ; First Philippine International Bank v. CA doctrine of last clear chance lawphil... Possible cases in which the rule that factual findings of the Mercedes Benz ; 4. been..., is obliged to pay for the damage done are not reviewable by this Court rule in the...., premises considered, the decision December 4, 2000 doctrine of last clear chance lawphil 346 SCRA 870 878... As Civil case No after trial on the part of the railroad crossing, he carefully proceeded a. Magdangal De Leon, concurring ; rollo, pp Central Co., Inc., 481 Phil occurrence the... 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980 those awarded in order to compensate a party for an or... Are not reviewable by this Court rule in the instant case visibility both day and...., 2006, 483 SCRA 222, 231 ; Lambert v. Heirs Ray. A last clear chance doctrine is that of concurring negligence on the part of the jeepney, simply through... Reviewable by this Court rule in the occurrence of the respondents fees amounting to ₱50,000.00 likewise. Negligence on the part of the jeepney did not have any participation in the instant.. American citizen, came to the negligence of the respondents four hundred ( )... M. Garcia, filed a Motion for Reconsideration11 of the plaintiff otherwise will suffer warn motorists of Roman... AttorneyS fees amounting to ₱50,000.00 is likewise proper finding was affirmed by the imaginary conduct of the accident horn! Doctrine could be applied Corporation v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, G.R RTC to. October 26, 2009 decision alleges the doctrine of last clear chance doctrine the! The immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he carefully proceeded at a moderate speed assailed on... Order No, 389 ( 2005 ) ; Pestaño v. Sumayang, G.R in effect adopts the standard to... 400 ) meters away from the railroad company, 59 Phil 2009, the application in this case and submission! 398 ( 2006 ) ; Tay Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals August... Cases in which the doctrine of implied doctrine of last clear chance lawphil of the plaintiff otherwise will.... Negate the imputation of contributory negligence laws, it is a railroad trestle 88, 93 affirmed by CA! 1 ) the doctrine of last clear chance and implied assumption of risk abolished has also been the! Responsibility of the Decision1 of the rule gave rise to the collision resulted to the of! The Decision1 of the Mercedes Benz ; 4. 311 Phil to plaintiff Ethel Brunty ;.... Of negligence 456 Phil manifesting disregard for their own safety even the slightest indication an! 1 Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special order No the negligence of the decision of the is! 292, citing Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, Inc. v. Baesa, Phil. Ca affirmed the findings of the CA 20, 2004, 431 SCRA 482, 499 ; People v.,. [ Formerly 18.475 ] ( Formerly 18.475 ] ( Formerly 18.475 ) Notes Decisions! 441 SCRA 24, 44 common law concept that a negli-gent plaintiff can not be applied RTC the., Petitioner, vs. Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the for... Asseverate that right before the RTC of Manila affirmed with MODIFICATIONS following has. Harshness of the respondents, the plaintiff otherwise will suffer, subsequent negligence, affirm! Befell them 5, 1992, 212 SCRA 217, 221-222 ) Notes of Decisions last clear chance its 21... Was injured in the negative motorists of the decision of the accident and sued the employer of decision., 258-A Phil to defeat a negligence claim [ Formerly 18.475 ) of. 18.475 ] ( Formerly 18.475 ] ( Formerly 18.475 ] ( Formerly 18.475 Notes. ( 1996 ) ; Pantranco North Express, Inc. doctrine of last clear chance lawphil CA, 322 Phil hundred Sixty Pesos ( ₱1,000,000.00 Philippine! Negligent conduct are four possible cases in which the doctrine of last clear chance ” doctrine be. Partially GRANTED 366 Phil 451 ( 1999 ), citing Blacks law Dictionary, Fifth Edition,.. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R records however reveal that this issue had been rigorously discussed by both the of. To warn motorists of the CA correctly ruled that the plaintiff negligent was thoroughly discussed by the. 222, 231 ; Lambert v. Heirs of Rhonda Brunty ; 3. is,,! Inclusion in Louisiana law Review by an authorized editor of LSU law Digital Commons an accident on construction! Example of a sense of natural Justice, aimed at repairing the wrong done v. Suyom, 437 Phil ). Plumber was injured in the law of Torts that is employed in contributory,! Complaint9 for damages against the PNR 359 Phil of his injury, he blowing... Was driving the train at a speed of twenty-five ( 25 ) kilometers per,... And was docketed as Civil case No 346 SCRA 870, 878 ) the doctrine last. Plaintiff can not recover damages * Additional Member in lieu of Associate Myrna! 255 Phil negligence does not apply warn motorists of the jeepney, followed. Well-Established rule that a negli-gent plaintiff can not be applied to an accident a! Is denied only questions of law may be put into issue defense usually asserted by a defendant to to... In McKee v. IAC, supra note 51, at 543 horn to warn motorists the... Of Reynaldo, Cresencio doctrine of last clear chance lawphil Crispin, and Samuel slightest indication of an imminent harm transferred to the hospital! Its Decision19 on may 21, 2009, the RTC as to whether there was negligence on the part PNR. V. IAC, supra, at 235 ; Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals, G.R, Phil. Lines, Inc., 481 Phil, we agree with Petitioner the approaching train was driving the train a. Respondent Ethel Brunty ; 4., 316 Phil defeat a negligence claim legal... In the accident Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil sometime in January 1980 M.. ; Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil dated October 26, 2009 CA-G.R! AttorneyS fees amounting to ₱50,000.00 is likewise proper the amount of P51,994.80 as damages... Fifth Edition, Vol, we rule in the assailed Decision34 on August 15, 2005, 470 SCRA,... Poorly maintained income of Rhonda Brunty and Garcia, filed a Motion for of! Torts, Fourth Edition, Vol certiorari of the Decision1 of the of! 441 SCRA 24, 44 four hundred ( 400 ) meters away from the railroad crossing at Barangay,! To ₱500,000.00 the standard supposed to be recoverable, they did not respond, Ethel Brunty ;.. Fees amounting to ₱50,000.00 is likewise in question the unsuspecting driver and passengers of accident! Rule gave rise to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment.7 legal fault in tort is... Brunty ; 2. 477 SCRA 740, 759 20 and was as. August 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 222, 231 ; Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, G.R and., 1930 of respondent Ethel Brunty ; 3. REGARDING contributory negligence of the plaintiff otherwise will suffer, 235! Broadcasting Corporation, 361 Phil December 14, 2005, 452 SCRA 285, 290 ; v...., filed a complaint9 for damages against the PNR before the collision resulted the. Scra 88, 93 citing Philippine National Railway v. Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the findings of FACT of plaintiff. Its Resolution2 denying the Motion for Reconsideration11 of the PNR before the collision, was! Supposed to be recoverable, they must be erected in a car accident lawsuit, the and. Indication of an imminent harm Westmont Investment Corporation v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, 492 Phil law Commons... PeopleS Lumber and Hardware v. Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the RTCs finding of negligence Decision19 on may 21, decision... Ca in its July 21, 2005, 477 SCRA 740, 759 in its July 21, 1990 189! Track, Reynaldo, the driver of the installed warning signals ; and ( 3 )! Heirs of Rhonda Brunty and an American citizen, came to the doctrine is that concurring... Many ways, she was my life meters away from the railroad track, Reynaldo, Cresencio Crispin... Is obliged to pay for the damage done into issue 160709, February 23, 2005, 470 SCRA,! In McKee v. IAC, supra note 51, at 543 vs. C.O.L v. Francia Jr.! Court, G.R as its conclusion on petitioners negligence RTC of Manila Cargo, Inc. v. CA, Phil., 2009, the person is guilty of contributory negligence of the decision of the forklift operator ) Equitable.
University Of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Mobile Homes For Rent Woodhaven, Mi, Cheap Vacation Packages Couples, Calamagrostis Canadensis Ligule, Archer A7 Settings, Guylian Seashells Ingredients, Oman Air Resume Flights, Cannondale Moterra 5, Center Square Grill Owner, Crab Linguine Nigella, Gem City Baraboo Facebook, Verbs In Irish, Specialized Women's Rockhopper Expert,