Del Prado v. Manila Electric, GR No. 29462, 1929-03-07
Facts:
Manila Electric Company, is engaged in operating street cars
in the City of Manila for the conveyance of passengers; and on the morning of
November 18, 1925, one Teodorico Florenciano, as appellant's motorman, was in
charge of car No. 74 running from east to west on R. Hidalgo Street, the scene
of the accident being at a point near the intersection of said street and
Mendoza Street. After the car had stopped at its appointed place for taking on
and letting off passengers, just east of the intersection, it resumed its
course at a moderate speed under the guidance of the motorman. The car had
proceeded only a short distance, however, when the plaintiff, Ignacio del
Prado, ran across the street to catch the car, his approach being made from the
left. The car was of the kind having entrance and exit at either end, and the
movement of the plaintiff was so timed that he arrived at the front entrance of
the car at the moment when the car was passing.
Plaintiff, upon approaching the car, raised his hand as an
indication to the motorman of his desire to board the car, in response to which
the motorman eased up a little, without stopping. Upon this the plaintiff
seized, with his left hand, the front perpendicular handpost, at the same time
placing his left foot upon the platform. However, before the plaintiff's
position had become secure, and even before his raised right foot had reached
the platform, the motorman applied the power, with the result that the car gave
a slight lurch forward. This sudden impulse to the car caused the plaintiff's
foot to slip, and his hand was jerked loose from the handpost. He therefore
fell to the ground, and his right foot was caught and crushed by the moving
car. The next day the member had to be amputated in the hospital.
The motorman stated at the trial that he did not see the
plaintiff attempting to board the car; that he did hot accelerate the speed of
the car as claimed by the plaintiff's witnesses; and that he in fact knew
nothing of the incident until after the plaintiff had been hurt and someone
called to him to stop.
The company pleaded as a special defense that it had used
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage suffered
by the plaintiff; and to establish this contention the company introduced
testimony showing that due care had been used in training and instructing the
motorman in charge of this car in his art.
Issues:
Whether or not Manila Electric should be held liable for the
injury suffered by De Prado
Ruling:
There is no obligation on the part of a street railway
company to stop its cars to let on intending passengers at other points than
those appointed for stoppage. In fact it would be impossible to operate a
system of street cars if a company engaged in this business were required to
stop any and everywhere to take on people who are too indolent, or who imagine
themselves to be in too great a hurry, to go to the proper place for boarding
the cars. Nevertheless, although the motorman of this car was not bound to stop
to let the plaintiff on, it was his duty to do no act that would have the
effect of increasing the plaintiff's peril while he was attempting to board the
car. The premature acceleration of the car was a breach of this duty.
The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and
its patrons is of a contractual nature; and a failure on the part of the
carrier to use due care in carrying its passengers safely is a breach of duty
(culpa contractual) under articles 1101, 1103, and 1104 of the Civil Code.
Furthermore, the duty that the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons
extends to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.
It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting
to board the moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct
and proximate cause of the injury was the act of appellant's motorman in
putting on the power prematurely. A person boarding a moving car must be taken
to assume the risk of injury from boarding the car under the conditions open to
his view, but he cannot fairly be held to assume the risk that the motorman,
having the situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the speed
of the car before he is planted safely on the platform. Again, the situation...
before us is one where the negligent act of the company's servant succeeded the
negligent act of the plaintiff, and the negligence of the company must be
considered the proximate cause of the injury. The rule here applicable seems to
be analogous to, if not identical with that which is sometimes referred to as
the doctrine of "the last clear chance" In accordance with this
doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the
action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable
care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the
injured party The negligence of the plaintiff was, however, contributory to the
accident and must be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Comments
Post a Comment