Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al.

G.R. No. L-10605, June 30, 1958

RELAE! LA"#
Civil Code: ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, ith a due regard for the all the
circumstances.
$A%&#
!everina "arces and her son #recillano $ecesito boarded a passenger
truc% of the #hilippine Rabbit &us 'ines driven by (rancisco &andonell. The
truc% entered a ooden bridge, but the front heels served to the right.
The driver lost control, and after rec%ing the bridge)s ooden rails, the
truc% fell on its right side into a cree% here ater as breast deep. "arces
died due to droning hile $ecesito su*ered in+uries.
To actions for damages and attorney)s fees totalling over #,5,---
ere .led ith the Tarlac C(/ against the carrier. The carrier pleaded that the
accident as due to 0engine or mechanical trouble0 independent or beyond
the control of the defendants or of the driver &andonell.
R%'s R(L)NG#
The trial court found that the bus as proceeding sloly due to the bad
condition of the road and that accident as due to the fracture of the truc%1s
right steering %nuc%le hich could not be %non by the carrier. Thus, it
dismissed the complaints holding that the accident as e2clusively due to
fortuitous events.
)&&(E#
3hether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the
steering %nuc%le, and hether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto
the carrier e2ercised the diligence re4uired by la.
&%'s R(L)NG#
5es. 3hile the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers,
a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an in+ury
resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer,
henever it appears that the defect ould have been discovered by the
carrier if it had e2ercised the degree of care hich under the circumstances
as incumbent upon it, ith regard to inspection and application of the
necessary tests. /n this connection, the manufacturer of the defective
appliance is considered in la the agent of the carrier, and the good repute
of the manufacturer ill not relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of
the carrier1s liability is the fact that the passenger has no privity ith the
manufacturer of the defective e4uipment6 hence, he has no remedy against
him, hile the carrier usually has. Carrier1s liability rests upon negligence, his
failure to e2ercise the 0utmost0 degree of diligence that the la re4uires, and
in case of a passenger)s death or in+ury the carrier bears the burden of
satisfying the court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence
re4uired.