PNR v BRUNTY [G.R. No. 169891. November 2, 2006.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, petitioner, vs. ETHEL BRUNTY and
JUAN MANUEL M. GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS:
Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799, driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T- 71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila 4 as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980.
By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical injuries. 5 A certain James Harrow 6 brought Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctor's Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was transferred to the Manila Doctor's Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment. 7
On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter 8 to the PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughter's death. When PNR did not respond, Ethel Brunty and Garcia, filed a complaint 9 for damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila.
Allegations:
1. 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.
FACTS:
Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799, driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T- 71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila 4 as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980.
By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical injuries. 5 A certain James Harrow 6 brought Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctor's Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was transferred to the Manila Doctor's Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment. 7
On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter 8 to the PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughter's death. When PNR did not respond, Ethel Brunty and Garcia, filed a complaint 9 for damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila.
Allegations:
1. 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. there was no flagbar or red light signal to warn motorists who were about to cross the railroad track, and that the flagman or
switchman was only equipped with a hand flashlight
3. failed to supervise its employees in the performance of their respective tasks and duties, more particularly the pilot and operator of the train
Defenses:
1. right of way on the railroad crossing in question, and that it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light signal in any such crossing. 2. there were adequate, visible, and clear warning signs strategically posted on the sides of the road before the railroad crossing.
3. the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was Mercelita's negligence, and that he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The driver disregarded the warning signs, the whistle blasts of the oncoming train and the flashlight signals to stop given by the guard
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. RTC: directed PNR to pay
2. CA: affirmed RTC with modification as to amount of damages
ISSUE:
Is PNR liable?
RULING:
Yes
the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing is not only inadequate but does not satisfy well-settled safety standards in transportatio
An examination of the photographs of the railroad crossing at Moncada, Tarlac presented as evidence by PNR itself would yield the following:
(1.) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars;
(2.) inadequacy of the installed warning signals; and
(3.) lack of proper lighting within the area. 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 one's view would be blocked by a cockpit arena
To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.
The court below found that there was a slight curve before approaching the tracks; the place was not properly illuminated; one's view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercelita was not familiar with the road. Yet, it was also established that Mercelita was then driving the Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70 km/hr and, in fact, had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before reaching the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. However, while his acts contributed to the collision, they nevertheless do not negate petitioner's liability. The record is bereft of any allegation and proof as to the relationship between Mercelita (the driver) and Rhonda Brunty. Hence, the earlier finding of contributory negligence on the part of Mercelita, which generally has the effect of mitigation of liability, does not apply.
3. failed to supervise its employees in the performance of their respective tasks and duties, more particularly the pilot and operator of the train
Defenses:
1. right of way on the railroad crossing in question, and that it has no legal duty to put up a bar or red light signal in any such crossing. 2. there were adequate, visible, and clear warning signs strategically posted on the sides of the road before the railroad crossing.
3. the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was Mercelita's negligence, and that he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. The driver disregarded the warning signs, the whistle blasts of the oncoming train and the flashlight signals to stop given by the guard
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. RTC: directed PNR to pay
2. CA: affirmed RTC with modification as to amount of damages
ISSUE:
Is PNR liable?
RULING:
Yes
the alleged safety measures installed by the PNR at the railroad crossing is not only inadequate but does not satisfy well-settled safety standards in transportatio
An examination of the photographs of the railroad crossing at Moncada, Tarlac presented as evidence by PNR itself would yield the following:
(1.) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars;
(2.) inadequacy of the installed warning signals; and
(3.) lack of proper lighting within the area. 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 one's view would be blocked by a cockpit arena
To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.
The court below found that there was a slight curve before approaching the tracks; the place was not properly illuminated; one's view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercelita was not familiar with the road. Yet, it was also established that Mercelita was then driving the Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70 km/hr and, in fact, had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before reaching the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. However, while his acts contributed to the collision, they nevertheless do not negate petitioner's liability. The record is bereft of any allegation and proof as to the relationship between Mercelita (the driver) and Rhonda Brunty. Hence, the earlier finding of contributory negligence on the part of Mercelita, which generally has the effect of mitigation of liability, does not apply.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment