E.M. Wright V Manila Electric R.R. & Light Co.

28 Phil 122 (October 1, 1914)

FACTS: Manila Electric is a corporation engaged in operating an electric street

railway. Wright s residence in Caloocan fronts on the street along which defendant s
tracks run. To enter his premises from the street, Wright must cross defendant s
tracks.
One night, Wright drove home in a calesa and in crossing the tracks to enter the
premises of his home, the horse stumbled, leaped forward, and fell, throwing th
e Wright from the vehicle, causing injuries. On the location where Wright crosse
d the tracks, the rails were above-ground, and the ties upon which the rails res
ted projected from one-third to one-half of their depth out of the ground, makin
g the tops of the rails some 5 or 6 inches or more above the level of the street
.
Manila Electric admitted that it was negligent in maintaining its tracks, but it
also claimed that Wright was also negligent in that he was so intoxicated, and
such intoxication was the primary cause of the accident.
The trial court held that both parties were negligent, but that plaintiff s neglig
ence was not as great as defendant s. It awarded Wright damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the negligence of Wright contributed to the principal occur
rence or only to his own injury.
HELD: NO. Intoxication in itself is not negligence. It is but a circumstance to
be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. No facts, oth
er than the fact that Wright was intoxicated, are stated which warrant the concl
usion that the plaintiff was negligent. The conclusion that if he had been sober
he would not have been injured is not warranted by the facts as found. It is im
possible to say that a sober man would not have fallen from the vehicle under th
e conditions described.
A horse crossing the railroad tracks with not only the rails but a portion of th
e ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reason of the unsure footing and fal
ling, the vehicle crashing against the rails with such force as to break a wheel
, might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no matter what his cond
ition; and to conclude that, under such circumstances, a sober man would not hav
e fallen while a drunken man did, is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm
of speculation and guesswork. Wright was not negligent. No facts to merit a hig
her award of damages to plaintiff