University of the Philippines College of Law

1-D

Topic Elements of Quasi-delictual liability/ Fault or negligence

Case No. GR No. 7760 / Oct 01, 1914
Case Name Wright vs Manila Electric Co.
Ponente MORELAND, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

Manila Electric operates an electric street railway in Manila and its suburbs, including the municipality of
Caloocan where Wright lives. Wright’s residence is in front of the street along which Manila Electric’s
tracks run, so that to enter his house he has to cross the tracks. On the night of the accident, he drove
home in a calesa and while crossing the tracks, the horse stumbled and fell, causing the vehicle to collide
with one of the rails. throwing Wright out of the vehicle and causing him injuries.

At the point where Wright crossed the tracks, not only were the rails were above-ground, but the ties
upon which the rails rested projected from 1/3 to 1/2 of their depth out of the ground, thus making the
tops of the rails some 5 or 6 inches or more above the level of the street.

Wright thus brought an action against Manila Electric to recover damages for the injuries he sustained in
the accident. Manila Electric admits that it was negligent in maintaining its tracks, but it contends that
Wright was also negligent in that he was intoxicated to such an extent that he was unable to take care of
himself properly and that such intoxication was the primary cause of the accident.

CFI held that both parties were negligent, but that Wright’s negligence was not as great as Manila
Electric’s, and under the authority of the case of Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, apportioned the damages to
P1,000. Both parties appealed from the decision, Manila Electric claiming that it was not liable and Wright
claiming that the damages were insufficient.

The issue is whether Wright was negligent, and if his negligence was the cause of the “principal
occurrence” therefore barring recovery, or simply contributing to his injury, in which case the CFI was
correct in apportioning the damages.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N Wright was negligent
as the lower court held
Ratio
NO.
There is nothing in the opinion of the CFI which sustains the conclusion
that Wright was negligent. Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is
immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care
or prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is
required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection
than by a sober one.

No facts stated in the opinion warrant the conclusion that Wright was
negligent. The lower court merely said “With respect to the condition in
which Mr. Wright was on returning to his house on the night in question,
 University of the Philippines College of Law
1-D

the testimony of Dr. Kneedler, who was the physician who attended him
an hour after the accident, demonstrates that he was intoxicated. “

The conclusion that if he had been sober he would not have been injured
is not warranted by the facts. It is impossible to say that a sober man
would not have fallen from the vehicle under the conditions
described. A horse crossing the railroad tracks with not only the rails but
a portion of the ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reason of the
unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashing against the rails with such
force as to break a wheel, this might be sufficient to throw a person
from the vehicle no matter what his condition; and to conclude that,
under such circumstances, a sober man would not have fallen while a
drunken man did, is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of
speculation and guess work.

RULING

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, without special finding as to costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Carson J., Dissenting

I think that if the case is to be decided on the findings of fact by the trial judge, these findings sufficiently
establish the negligence of Wright. The trial judge expressly found that had Wright been prudent on that
night, and had not attempted to drive while in a drunken condition, he would certainly have avoided the
damages which he received, although the company, on its part, was negligent in maintaining its tracks in
a bad condition for travel."

This is a finding of fact the-fact of negligence and I know of no rule which requires the trial court to
set forth not only the ultimate facts found by it, but also all the evidentiary facts on which such
conclusions are based. The finding is not in conflict with the other facts found by the trial judge, and
though it is not fully sustained thereby, we must assume, if we decline to examine the record, that
there were evidentiary facts disclosed at the trial which were sufficient to sustain the finding of
negligence. "The statement of facts must contain only those facts which are essential to a clear
understanding of the issues presented and the facts involved."

NOTES