M. H. RAKES VS.

THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY (1907)

G.R. No. 1719

FACTS: The plaintiff was one of eight laborers of the defendant company. They were
transporting iron rails from a harbor to the company yard by hand car. Some laborers
would push the hand car while some would assist by pulling the hand car by a rope. The
plaintiff was walking alongside the hand car. At a certain spot at or near the water's
edge, the track which guided the hand car had sagged, the tie broke, the car either
canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was
afterwards amputated at about the knee.
The plaintiff sought for damages against the defendant alleging that the accident
happened through the negligence of the defendant.
The courts found the defendant liable; that implied by the relation between the
parties, the employer is bound to provide safe appliances for the use of the employee;
that it was the duty of the defendant to build and to maintain its track in reasonably
sound condition, so as to protect its workingmen from unnecessary danger; that
defendant failed in its duty, otherwise the accident could not have occurred and,
consequently, the negligence of the defendant is established.
The most controverted question in the case was whether the plaintiff committed
contributed negligence on the grounds that (1) he noticed the depression in the track he
continued his work, and (2) he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car
instead of along the boards, either before or behind it.

ISSUE: Whether there was contributed negligence by the plaintiff.

HELD: The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but deducted from the award the amount
fairly attributable to the plaintiffs negligence.
Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party
shall be considered immediate causes of the accident. The test is simple. Distinction
must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without
which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering
into it, independent of it, but contributing under review was the displacement of the
crosspiece or the failure to replace it. This produced the event giving occasion for
damages that is, the shinking of the track and the sliding of the iron rails. To this
event, the act of the plaintiff in walking by the side of the car did not contribute, although
it was an element of the damage which came to himself. Had the crosspiece been out of
place wholly or partly thorough his act of omission of duty, the last would have been one
of the determining causes of the event or accident, for which he would have been
responsible. Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its determining
factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes
only to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the
event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own
imprudence.