You are on page 1of 2

TRANSPORTATIONTESORO3D(ATENEOLAW2014)Arboladura,Becina,Certeza,Confstantino,Ferrer,Galleon,Ilano,Leonardo,Magbanua,Pieraz,Pozon,Saile,Salva,Tiu

VDA.DENUECAv.MANILARAILROADCO. Issue:

Facts: 1. W/NNuecawasapassenger?
2. W/NMRCisliable?
At3p.m.onDec.22,1958,FerminNuecabrought7sacksof 3. WastheaccidentduetoMRCsnegligenceorforcemajeur?
palaytoManilaRailroadCo.(MRC)atitsstationinBarriodel 4. IsNuecaliableforcontributorynegligence?
Rosario,CamarinesSur,tobeshippedtothemunicipalityof
Libmananofthesameprovince.
Held:
HepaidP0.70asfreightchargeandwasissuedWayBillNo.
56515. 1. No,Nuecawasnotapassengerthus,MRCdidnotowehim
extraordinarydiligence.
ThecargowasloadedonthefreightwagonofTrain537.
Passengersboardedthetrainandshuntingoperationsstarted Apassengerisonewhotravelsinapublicconveyancebyvirtueofa
tohookawagonthereto. contract,expressorimplied,withthecarrierastothepaymentofthe
fare,orthatwhichisacceptedasanequivalent.
Beforethetrainreachedtheturnoffswitch,itspassengercoach
fellonitssidesome40mfromthestation.Thewagonpinned Therelationofpassengerandcarriercommenceswhenoneputs
Nueca,killinghiminstantly. himselfinthecareofthecarrier,ordirectlyunderitscontrol,withthe
bonafideintentionofbecomingapassenger,andisacceptedassuch
Nuecaswidowandchildrenbringthisclaimfordamages, bythecarrieraswherehemakesacontractfortrasportationand
allegingthattheNuecawasapassengerandhisdeathwas presentshimselfattheproperplaceandinapropermannertobe
causedbyMRCsnegligence. transported.
MRCdisclaimedliabilitystating:(1)itexercisedduecarein Evendisregardingthematteroftickets,andassumingNuecaintended
safeguardingthepassengersduringtheshuntingoperation,(2) tobeapassenger,hewasneveracceptedassuchbyMRCashedidnot
Nuecawasnotapassengerbutatrespasser,(3)evenifNueca presenthimselfattheproperplaceandinapropermannertobe
wereapassenger,heillegallyboardedthetrainwithout transported.
permissionbynotpayingthefare,(4)themishapwasnot
attributabletoanydefectinMRCequipment,(5)thatthe 2. Yes,theliabilityofrailroadcompaniestopersonsuponthe
accidenthappenedduetoforcemajeur. premisesisdeterminedbythegeneralrulesofnegligence
relatingtodutiesofowners/occupiersofproperty.
MRCpresentedevidenceshowingtherewasnomechanical
defect,butitdidnotexplainwhytheaccidentoccurredor Whilerailroadcompaniesarenotboundtothesamedegreeofcarein
showthatforcemajeurcausedthemishap. regardtostrangerswhoareunlawfullyuponthepremisesofits
passengers,itmaystillbeliabletosuchstrangersfornegligentor
ThelowercourtabsolvedMRCofliabilityandheldthatNueca tortiousacts.
wasatrespassersincehedidnotbuyanyticket,andinany
PAGE2case,wasnotinaproperplaceforpassengers. Here,Nuecawasnotonthetrack,buteitherunlawfullyinsidethe
TRANSPORTATIONTESORO3D(ATENEOLAW2014)Arboladura,Becina,Certeza,Confstantino,Ferrer,Galleon,Ilano,Leonardo,Magbanua,Pieraz,Pozon,Saile,Salva,Tiu

baggagecarorbesidethetrack.

Itisnormalforpeopletowalkonthetrackorroadbedwhenthereis
nooncomingtrainandtowalkbesidethetrackwhenatrainpasses.
ThispracticeistoleratedbyMRC.Generally,MRCsstationsarenot
enclosed,andiseasilyaccessibletothepublic.

3. MRCisnegligent;doctrineofresipsaloquiturapplied.

Thetrainwasunderthecompletecontroloftherailroadcompanyat
thetimeoftheaccident.Thebaggagecarwouldnothavebeen
derailedifthetrainhadbeenproperlyoperated.

Resipsaloquiturisaruleofevidencepeculiartothelawofnegligence
whichrecognizesthatprimafacienegligencemaybeestablished
withoutdirectproofandfurnishesasubstituteforspecificproofof
negligence.

4.No.

Aninvitationtostayinthepremisesisimpliedfromthelackof
prohibitiontooutsiderstokeepoffthepremises,hence,astranger
whoisinjuredbyaderailedtrainwhilestayingbesidearailroadtrack
isnotguiltyofcontributorynegligence.

Note:OurlawoncommoncarriersisliftedfromAngloAmerican
statutes.

PAGE2