KIM V PHIL AERIAL TAXI [G.R. No. 39309. November 24, 1933.] TEH LE KIM, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI
CO., INC., defendant-appellee. Marcelo Nubla, G. E. Campbell and W. A. Caldwell, for appellant. L. D. Lockwood, for appellee.
FACTS:
On the morning of September 4, 1931, the plaintiff herein bought, in Manila, a passenger ticket for a flight to Iloilo in one of the defendant company's hydroplanes starting from Madrigal Field in Pasay. Inasmuch as the engine of the plane Mabuhay, in which he was to make the flight, was not working satisfactorily, the said plaintiff had to wait for some time. While the engine was being tested, the plaintiff saw how it was started by turning the propeller repeatedly and how the man who did it ran away from it each time in order not to be caught by the said propeller. Before the plane Mabuhay was put in condition for the flight, the plane Taal arrived and it was decided to have the plaintiff make the flight therein. The plaintiff and his companion were carefully carried from the beach to the plane, entering the same by the rear or tail end, and were placed in their seats to which they were strapped. Later, they were shown how the straps could be tightened or loosened in case of accident and were instructed further not to touch anything in the plane. After an uneventful flight, the plane landed on the waters of Guimaras Strait, in front of Iloilo and taxied toward the beach until its pontoons struck bottom, when the plane stopped. The pilot shut off the gasoline feed pipe, permitting the engine, however, to continue to function until all the gasoline was drained from the feed pipe and carburetor. This operation was necessary in accordance with the established practice of aviation in order to avoid danger of fire which would exist if the pipes and carburetor remained full of gasoline, and to prevent the sudden cooling of the engine which might cause serious damage, especially to the valves.
When the pilot observed that of a banca was approaching rapidly on the right hand side of the plane, he arose signalled and shouted to the boatman to keep his banca at a distance from the plane, inasmuch as there were waves and quite a strong current, and he feared that the banca, which had a high prow, might collide with the plane and damage either the wing or the pontoon thereof. While he was doing this, he heard the propeller strike something. He immediately turned off the switch and, looking on the other side, he saw Bohn picking up the plaintiff out of the water.
What really happened was that at the moment the pontoons touched bottom and while the pilot was signalling to the banca, the plaintiff unfastened the straps around him and, not even waiting to put on his hat, climbed over the door to the lower wing, went down the ladder to the pontoon and walked along the pontoon toward the revolving propeller. The propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he threw up his arm, it was caught by the revolving blades thereof and so injured that it had to be amputated.
The usual procedure in discharging passengers from a hydroplane is to wait until the propeller stops, then turn the plane around by hand so as to have the rear or tail and thereof towards the beach, and then take the passengers to shore in a banca. The pilot in charge of the plane has had fourteen years experience, having first learned to fly during the World War. He is duly licensed by the Department of Commerce of the United States and by the Department of Commerce and Communications of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
ISSUE:
whether or not the defendant entity has complied with its contractual obligation to carry the plaintiff-appellant Teh Le Kim safe and sound to his destination.
RULING:
Yes. Hence, it is not liable. By sheer common sense, the plaintiff ought to know that a propeller, be it that of a ship or of an aeroplane, is dangerous while in motion and that to approach it is to run the risk of being caught and injured thereby. He ought to know furthermore that inasmuch as the plane was on the water, he had to wait for a banca to take him ashore.
NEGLIGENCE; DAMAGES; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. — It is not difficult to understand from the circumstances of the instant case that the plaintiff-appellant, a passenger of a hydroplane belonging to the defendant company, acted with reckless negligence in approaching the propeller while it was still in motion, and when the banca was not yet in a position to take him. That the plaintiff- appellant's negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident is so clear that it is not necessary to cite authoritative opinions to support the conclusion that the injury to his arm and the subsequent amputation thereof, were entirely and exclusively due to his own imprudence and not to the slightest negligence attributable to the defendant company or to its agents. Therefore, he alone should suffer the consequences of his act.
FACTS:
On the morning of September 4, 1931, the plaintiff herein bought, in Manila, a passenger ticket for a flight to Iloilo in one of the defendant company's hydroplanes starting from Madrigal Field in Pasay. Inasmuch as the engine of the plane Mabuhay, in which he was to make the flight, was not working satisfactorily, the said plaintiff had to wait for some time. While the engine was being tested, the plaintiff saw how it was started by turning the propeller repeatedly and how the man who did it ran away from it each time in order not to be caught by the said propeller. Before the plane Mabuhay was put in condition for the flight, the plane Taal arrived and it was decided to have the plaintiff make the flight therein. The plaintiff and his companion were carefully carried from the beach to the plane, entering the same by the rear or tail end, and were placed in their seats to which they were strapped. Later, they were shown how the straps could be tightened or loosened in case of accident and were instructed further not to touch anything in the plane. After an uneventful flight, the plane landed on the waters of Guimaras Strait, in front of Iloilo and taxied toward the beach until its pontoons struck bottom, when the plane stopped. The pilot shut off the gasoline feed pipe, permitting the engine, however, to continue to function until all the gasoline was drained from the feed pipe and carburetor. This operation was necessary in accordance with the established practice of aviation in order to avoid danger of fire which would exist if the pipes and carburetor remained full of gasoline, and to prevent the sudden cooling of the engine which might cause serious damage, especially to the valves.
When the pilot observed that of a banca was approaching rapidly on the right hand side of the plane, he arose signalled and shouted to the boatman to keep his banca at a distance from the plane, inasmuch as there were waves and quite a strong current, and he feared that the banca, which had a high prow, might collide with the plane and damage either the wing or the pontoon thereof. While he was doing this, he heard the propeller strike something. He immediately turned off the switch and, looking on the other side, he saw Bohn picking up the plaintiff out of the water.
What really happened was that at the moment the pontoons touched bottom and while the pilot was signalling to the banca, the plaintiff unfastened the straps around him and, not even waiting to put on his hat, climbed over the door to the lower wing, went down the ladder to the pontoon and walked along the pontoon toward the revolving propeller. The propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he threw up his arm, it was caught by the revolving blades thereof and so injured that it had to be amputated.
The usual procedure in discharging passengers from a hydroplane is to wait until the propeller stops, then turn the plane around by hand so as to have the rear or tail and thereof towards the beach, and then take the passengers to shore in a banca. The pilot in charge of the plane has had fourteen years experience, having first learned to fly during the World War. He is duly licensed by the Department of Commerce of the United States and by the Department of Commerce and Communications of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
ISSUE:
whether or not the defendant entity has complied with its contractual obligation to carry the plaintiff-appellant Teh Le Kim safe and sound to his destination.
RULING:
Yes. Hence, it is not liable. By sheer common sense, the plaintiff ought to know that a propeller, be it that of a ship or of an aeroplane, is dangerous while in motion and that to approach it is to run the risk of being caught and injured thereby. He ought to know furthermore that inasmuch as the plane was on the water, he had to wait for a banca to take him ashore.
NEGLIGENCE; DAMAGES; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. — It is not difficult to understand from the circumstances of the instant case that the plaintiff-appellant, a passenger of a hydroplane belonging to the defendant company, acted with reckless negligence in approaching the propeller while it was still in motion, and when the banca was not yet in a position to take him. That the plaintiff- appellant's negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident is so clear that it is not necessary to cite authoritative opinions to support the conclusion that the injury to his arm and the subsequent amputation thereof, were entirely and exclusively due to his own imprudence and not to the slightest negligence attributable to the defendant company or to its agents. Therefore, he alone should suffer the consequences of his act.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment