Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT alighted is found in the fact that it was the customary season for harvesting these melons
Manila and a large lot had been brought to the station for the shipment to the market. They were
EN BANC contained in numerous sacks which has been piled on the platform in a row one upon
G.R. No. L-12191 October 14, 1918 another. The testimony shows that this row of sacks was so placed of melons and the edge
JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, of platform; and it is clear that the fall of the plaintiff was due to the fact that his foot
vs. alighted upon one of these melons at the moment he stepped upon the platform. His
MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee. statement that he failed to see these objects in the darkness is readily to be credited.
Ramon Sotelo for appellant. The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an unconscious condition, and it appeared
Kincaid & Hartigan for appellee. that the injuries which he had received were very serious. He was therefore brought at
once to a certain hospital in the city of Manila where an examination was made and his
FISHER, J.: arm was amputated. The result of this operation was unsatisfactory, and the plaintiff was
At the time of the occurrence which gave rise to this litigation the plaintiff, Jose Cangco, then carried to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the
was in the employment of Manila Railroad Company in the capacity of clerk, with a member was again amputated higher up near the shoulder. It appears in evidence that the
monthly wage of P25. He lived in the pueblo of San Mateo, in the province of Rizal, which plaintiff expended the sum of P790.25 in the form of medical and surgical fees and for
is located upon the line of the defendant railroad company; and in coming daily by train to other expenses in connection with the process of his curation.
the company's office in the city of Manila where he worked, he used a pass, supplied by Upon August 31, 1915, he instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of the
the company, which entitled him to ride upon the company's trains free of charge. Upon city of Manila to recover damages of the defendant company, founding his action upon
the occasion in question, January 20, 1915, the plaintiff arose from his seat in the second the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of
class-car where he was riding and, making, his exit through the door, took his position upon melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of
the steps of the coach, seizing the upright guardrail with his right hand for support. passenger alighting from the company's trains. At the hearing in the Court of First Instance,
On the side of the train where passengers alight at the San Mateo station there is a cement his Honor, the trial judge, found the facts substantially as above stated, and drew
platform which begins to rise with a moderate gradient some distance away from the therefrom his conclusion to the effect that, although negligence was attributable to the
company's office and extends along in front of said office for a distance sufficient to cover defendant by reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct
the length of several coaches. As the train slowed down another passenger, named Emilio passengers passing to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to
Zuiga, also an employee of the railroad company, got off the same car, alighting safely at use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded form recovering.
the point where the platform begins to rise from the level of the ground. When the train Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of the defendant company, and the plaintiff
had proceeded a little farther the plaintiff Jose Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of appealed.
his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped It can not be doubted that the employees of the railroad company were guilty of
from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the negligence in piling these sacks on the platform in the manner above stated; that their
platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they therefore
lacerated. It appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It necessarily
possibly six meters before it came to a full stop. follows that the defendant company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned unless
The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night, and as the railroad station recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. In resolving this problem
was lighted dimly by a single light located some distance away, objects on the platform it is necessary that each of these conceptions of liability, to-wit, the primary responsibility
where the accident occurred were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from of the defendant company and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff should be
a lighted car. separately examined.
of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, As the case now before us presents itself, the only fact from which a conclusion can be
the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributory drawn to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is that he stepped
negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting. off the car without being able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while
Under the doctrine of comparative negligence announced in the Rakes case (supra), if the the train was yet slowly moving. In considering the situation thus presented, it should not
accident was caused by plaintiff's own negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant's be overlooked that the plaintiff was, as we find, ignorant of the fact that the obstruction
negligence and plaintiff's negligence merely contributed to his injury, the damages should which was caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed; and as the
be apportioned. It is, therefore, important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of defendant was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers
negligence. facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to assume, in the absence
It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The place,
alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. Defendant as we have already stated, was dark, or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure
contends, and cites many authorities in support of the contention, that it is negligence per upon the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff;
se for a passenger to alight from a moving train. We are not disposed to subscribe to this for if it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of
doctrine in its absolute form. We are of the opinion that this proposition is too badly stated alighting passengers, the placing of them adequately so that their presence would be
and is at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this particular instance, that the revealed.
train was barely moving when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it As pertinent to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in this
came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of case the following circumstances are to be noted: The company's platform was
person alight from trains under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no constructed upon a level higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding ground. The
injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There distance from the steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place
is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting his feet on the platform was thus reduced, thereby decreasing the risk incident to stepping
Separate Opinions