Cangco vs Manila Railroad Co.

FACTS: Jose Cangco, was an employee of Manila Railroad Company as clerk. He rides the train for free as he used a pass
supplied by the company. On January 20, 1915, at about 7-8pm, with the place dimly lighted, the plaintiff arose from his
seat in the train where he was riding and, making, his exit through the door, took his position upon the steps of the coach,
seizing the upright guardrail with his right hand for support. When he stepped off, one or both of his feet came in contact
with a sack of watermelons and his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once
rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It
appears that after the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it came to a full
stop.
Cangco was then brought to the hospital for medical attention and his crushed was amputated.
Cangco instituted a case in the CFI of Manila to recover damages, founding his action upon the negligence of the servants
and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a
menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company's trains. The defendants averred that even granting that
the negligent conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach of its contractual obligation
to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains, the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by
plaintiff was his own contributory negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting.
The trial judge, decided in favor of the defendant holding that although negligence was attributable to the defendant by
reason of the fact that the sacks of melons were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing to and from the cars,
nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded
form recovering. Thus, Cangco appealed.

ISSUE: Should the defendants be held liable for damages?

HELD: Yes. The train was barely moving when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within
six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of people alight from trains under these conditions every
day of the year and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is
no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did have it not been for
defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place. The defendant was bound by reason of
its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers’ facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to
assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The place was
dark, or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty owing
by it to the plaintiff; for if it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of alighting
passengers, the placing of them adequately so that their presence would be revealed. The conduct of the plaintiff in
undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore
he was not guilty of contributory negligence.