Ponente: Fisher, J.
SUMMARY:
Cangco was alighting from a moving train when he stepped on
a sack of watermelons on the platform, causing him to fall and be drawn under
the train. His right arm was crushed and subsequently amputated. He filed an
action for damages against Manila Railroad, claiming negligence on the part of
the company. CFI denied his claim, citing contributory negligence. But the SC
held that Manila Railroad was liable, not because of a quasi-delict (culpa
extra contractual), but on account of breach of the contract of carriage (culpa
contractual) between the company and Cangco.
FACTS:
Jose Cangco, a copy clerk of Manila Railroad, used a pass
supplied by his employer entitling him to ride upon the company’s trains for
free.
On January 20, 1915, while the train was slowing down at the
train’s San Mateo station, Cangco arose from his seat and inched his way to the
door. He was standing behind Zuniga, another passenger, who stood directly at
the coach’s exit. Zuniga was able to alight safely on the platform
When the train had proceeded a little farther, Cangco
stepped off also. However, one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack
of watermelons. As a result, his feet slipped from under him and he fell
violently on the platform.
Cangco’s body rolled from the platform and was drawn under
the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. He was rushed
to a certain hospital in Manila where his arm was amputated. The result of this
operation was unsatisfactory, and so Cangco had to be carried to another
hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again
amputated higher up near the shoulder. In all, Cangco spent P790.25 in the form
of medical and surgical fees and for other expenses.
It appears that the incident occurred between 7 and 8 in the
evening. The station was dimly lit at the time, so the objects on the platform
were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from a lighted car.
In addition, the presence of a sack of watermelons on the
platform where Cangco alighted can be attributed to the fact that it was the
customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought
to the station for shipment to the market. They were contained in numerous
sacks which had been piled on the platform.
On account of his injuries, Cangco filed an action for
damages against Manila Railroad, claiming that the latter’s employees were
negligent 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.
CFI: Denied Cangco’s claim for damages because
although negligence was attributable to Manila Railroad by reason of the fact
that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to
and from the cars, nevertheless, Cangco himself had failed to use due caution
in alighting from the coach. He was therefore precluded from recovering.
Hence, the instant appeal.
RULING:
Whether Manila
Railroad can posit the defense that it exercised due diligence of a good father
in the selection and supervision of its employees to escape liability. – NO.
Manila Railroad: It exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees, so it
should not be liable. But even granting that the negligent conduct of its
employees in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its
contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its
trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by Cangco was his
own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a
complete stop before alighting.
SC: In a case of negligence which presupposes the
existence of a contractual obligation, the plaintiff should only prove that the
contract exists and that the defendant has breached it—it is not necessary for
the plaintiff to prove negligence. As such, it is obvious that proof on the
part of defendant that the negligence or omission of his servants or agents
caused the breach of the contract would NOT constitute a defense to the action.
In the instant case, the facts averred show a contractual
undertaking (contract of carriage) by Manila Railroad for the benefit of
Cangco, and it is alleged that Manila Railroad failed to perform such contract.
Given the circumstances, it is not necessary for Cangco to specify in his
pleadings whether the breach of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence on the part of the Manila Railroad or of its employees. Proof of the
contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima facie to warrant a
recovery.
The public policy justification for it is that if the
negligence of servants or agents could be invoked as a means of discharging the
liability arising from contract, the anomalous result would be that a person
acting through the medium of agents or servants in the performance of their
contracts would be in a better position than those acting in person.
In effect, juridical persons would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts, given that juridical persons can of necessity only act through agents or employees, and it would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and direction of such employees.
In effect, juridical persons would enjoy practically complete immunity from damages arising from the breach of their contracts if caused by negligent acts, given that juridical persons can of necessity only act through agents or employees, and it would no doubt be true in most instances that reasonable care had been taken in selection and direction of such employees.
For example, if one delivers securities to a banking
corporation as collateral, and they are lost by reason of the negligence of
some clerk employed by the bank, would it be just and reasonable to permit the
bank to relieve itself of liability for the breach of its contract to return
the collateral upon the payment of the debt by proving that due care had been
exercised in the selection and direction of the clerk? Definitely not -- the
bank remains liable.
Even a review of jurisprudence would should that in no case
has the Court ever decided that the negligence of the defendant’s servants has
been held to constitute a defense to an action for damages for breach of
contract.
Whether it was
improper for Cangco to step off the train while it was still moving slowly. –
NO.
MRR’s arguments: Cangco is guilty of contributory
negligence for alighting from a moving train without waiting until the train
had come to a complete stop. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, if
the accident was caused by plaintiff’s own negligence, no liability is imposed
upon defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s negligence merely contributed to
his injury, the damages should be apportioned.
SC: While it is true that had Cangco waited until the
train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered
by him could not have occurred. But this proposition is too badly stated and is
at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this particular instance,
that the train was barely moving when Cangco alighted is shown conclusively by
the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped
from it. 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.
The correct doctrine relating to this subject is: that
expressed in Thompson’s work on Negligence (vol. 3, sec. 3010) as follows: “The
test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence
in attempting to alight from a moving railway train, is that of ordinary or
reasonable care. It is to be considered whether an ordinarily prudent person,
of the age, sex and condition of the passenger, would have acted as the
passenger acted under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. This care
has been defined to be, not the care which may or should be used by the prudent
man generally, but the care which a man of ordinary prudence would use under
similar circumstances, to avoid injury.”
To determine if there was contributory negligence, the test should be: Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time he alighted from the train which would have admonished a person of average prudence that to get off the train under the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted from alighting; and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence.
Whether Cangco is
guilty of contributory negligence. – NO.
The allegation that Cangco was guilty of contributory
negligence is drawn from the fact that he stepped off the train without being
able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train was
yet slowly moving.
But circumstances would show that there was no contributory
negligence from his end. First, he was not aware of the fact that the
obstruction caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as
Manila Railroad was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford
to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, Cangco had a
right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the
contrary, that the platform was clear.
Second, the place was dark or dimly lighted. This is also a
proof of a failure upon the part of Manila Railroad in the performance of a
duty owing by it to its passengers, for granting for the sake of argument that
it indeed had the right to place the sacks in the path of alighting passengers,
the said sacks would have been visible had there been adequate lighting.
Third, Cangco was possessed of the vigor and agility of
young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the
train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble
person. In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing
such act — that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly
— the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances
necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered.
And fourth, the place was perfectly familiar to Cangco as it
was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. There could,
therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of
the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where
he was alighting.
Whether Manila Railroad should be held liable for Cangco’s
injuries? – YES.
What is the basis of Manila Railroad’s liability? -- BREACH
OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, NOT VICARIOUS LIABILITY DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.
The foundation of the legal liability of Manila Railroad is
the contract of carriage. The obligation to respond for the damage which Cangco
had suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of Manila
Railroad’s failure to exercise due care in its performance. Vicarious liability
of employers arising from the negligence of their employees vs. liability
arising from breach of contract
DISSENTING OPINION
Malcolm, J.
The CFI’s ruling should be upheld. Cangco should not be
entitled to any compensation because he is guilty of contributory negligence.
Concurs with the majority decision BUT ONLY on the following
point made therein: "It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until
the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury
suffered by him could not have occurred.”
DOCTRINE:
The contract to transport a person carries with it, by
implication, the duty (of, say, a train company) to carry him in safety and to
provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains. That duty, being
contractual, is direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be
excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant’s employees.