CANGCO V MRR G.R. No. L-12191 October 14, 1918 JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO.,
defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
Jose Cangco, was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company in the capacity of clerk, with a monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming daily by train to the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge.
On January 20, 1915, the plaintiff Jose Cangco upon stepping off the train, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full stop. The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night. It appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended the sum of P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses in connection with the process of his curation. Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover damages of the defendant company, founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI – MRR not liable. Although negligence was attributable to the defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded form recovering.
ISSUE:
Is MRR liable?
RULING: Yes.
The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants.
Under article 1903 of the Civil Code the law creates a presumption that he has been negligent in the selection or direction of his servant, but the presumption is rebuttable and yield to proof of due care and diligence in this respect.
From this article two things are apparent:
(1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and
(2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
FACTS:
Jose Cangco, was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company in the capacity of clerk, with a monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming daily by train to the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge.
On January 20, 1915, the plaintiff Jose Cangco upon stepping off the train, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full stop. The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night. It appears in evidence that the plaintiff expended the sum of P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses in connection with the process of his curation. Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover damages of the defendant company, founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. CFI – MRR not liable. Although negligence was attributable to the defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded form recovering.
ISSUE:
Is MRR liable?
RULING: Yes.
The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, article 1258). That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants.
Under article 1903 of the Civil Code the law creates a presumption that he has been negligent in the selection or direction of his servant, but the presumption is rebuttable and yield to proof of due care and diligence in this respect.
From this article two things are apparent:
(1) That when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and
(2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.
Culpa contractual
1. Due diligence in the selection & supervision of the employee is not a defense
2. vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation
3. proof of the contract and its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery
Culpa aquiliana
1. It is a defense (under Article 2180 of the present code)
1. Due diligence in the selection & supervision of the employee is not a defense
2. vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation
3. proof of the contract and its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a recovery
1. It is a defense (under Article 2180 of the present code)
2. Wrongful or negligent act or omission itself creates
the vinculum juris
3. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence
Plaintiff, also, is not guilty of contributory negligence. Thousands of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place.
3. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence
Plaintiff, also, is not guilty of contributory negligence. Thousands of person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment