1C81S #13

uel rado v Meralco

C8 no L29462 March 7 1929

lacLs
1eodorlco llorenclano Meralco's moLorman was drlvlng Lhe company's sLreeL car along Pldalgo SLreeL lalnLlff
lgnaclo uel rado ran across Lhe sLreeL Lo caLch Lhe car 1he moLorman eased up buL dld noL puL Lhe car lnLo
compleLe sLop lalnLlff was able Lo geL hold of Lhe rall and sLep hls lefL fooL when Lhe car acceleraLed As a resulL
plalnLlff sllpped off and fell Lo Lhe ground Pls fooL was crushed by Lhe wheel of Lhe car Pe flled a complalnL for
culpa conLracLual

lssues
(1) WheLher Lhe moLorman was negllgenL
(2) WheLher Meralco ls llable for breach of conLracL of carrlage
(3) WheLher Lhere was conLrlbuLory negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe plalnLlff

Peld
(1) We may observe aL Lhe ouLseL LhaL Lhere ls no obllgaLlon on Lhe parL of a sLreeL rallway company Lo sLop lLs
cars Lo leL on lnLendlng passengers aL oLher polnLs Lhan Lhose appolnLed for sLoppage neverLheless alLhough Lhe
moLorman of Lhls car was noL bound Lo sLop Lo leL Lhe plalnLlff on lL was hls duLy Lo do no acL LhaL would have Lhe
effecL of lncreaslng Lhe plalnLlffs perll whlle he was aLLempLlng Lo board Lhe car 1he premaLure acceleraLlon of
Lhe car was ln our oplnlon a breach of Lhls duLy

(2) 1he relaLlon beLween a carrler of passengers for hlre and lLs paLrons ls of a conLracLual naLure and a fallure on
Lhe parL of Lhe carrler Lo use due care ln carrylng lLs passengers safely ls a breach of duLy (culpa conLracLual)
lurLhermore Lhe duLy LhaL Lhe carrler of passengers owes Lo lLs paLrons exLends Lo persons boardlng Lhe cars as
well as Lo Lhose allghLlng Lherefrom
Where llablllLy arlses from a mere LorL (culpa aqulllana) noL lnvolvlng a breach of poslLlve obllgaLlon an employer
or masLer may exculpaLe hlmself by provlng LhaL he had exerclsed due dlllgence Lo prevenL Lhe damage whereas
Lhls defense ls noL avallable lf Lhe llablllLy of Lhe masLer arlses from a breach of conLracLual duLy (culpa
conLracLual) ln Lhe case before us Lhe company pleaded as a speclal defense LhaL lL had used all Lhe dlllgence of a
good faLher of a famlly Lo prevenL Lhe damage suffered by Lhe plalnLlff and Lo esLabllsh Lhls conLenLlon Lhe
company lnLroduced LesLlmony showlng LhaL due care had been used ln Lralnlng and lnsLrucLlng Lhe moLorman ln
charge of Lhls car ln hls arL 8uL Lhls proof ls lrrelevanL ln vlew of Lhe facL LhaL Lhe llablllLy lnvolved was derlved
from a breach of obllgaLlon

(3) lL ls obvlous LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs negllgence ln aLLempLlng Lo board Lhe movlng car was noL Lhe proxlmaLe cause
of Lhe ln[ury 1he dlrecL and proxlmaLe cause of Lhe ln[ury was Lhe acL of appellanLs moLorman ln puLLlng on Lhe
power premaLurely Agaln Lhe slLuaLlon before us ls one where Lhe negllgenL acL of Lhe companys servanL
succeeded Lhe negllgenL acL of Lhe plalnLlff and Lhe negllgence of Lhe company musL be consldered Lhe proxlmaLe
cause of Lhe ln[ury 1he rule here appllcable seems Lo be analogous Lo lf noL ldenLlcal wlLh LhaL whlch ls
someLlmes referred Lo as Lhe docLrlne of Lhe lasL clear chance ln accordance wlLh Lhls docLrlne Lhe conLrlbuLory
negllgence of Lhe parLy ln[ured wlll noL defeaL Lhe acLlon lf lL be shown LhaL Lhe defendanL mlghL by Lhe exerclse of
reasonable care and prudence have avolded Lhe consequences of Lhe negllgence of Lhe ln[ured parLy 1he
negllgence of Lhe plalnLlff was however conLrlbuLory Lo Lhe accldenL and musL be consldered as a mlLlgaLlng
clrcumsLance