DAVID TAYLOR

vs.
THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

CARSON, J.:
FACTS:

The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation of a street railway

and an electric light system in the city of Manila. Its power plant is situated at the
eastern end of a small island in the Pasig River within the city of Manila, known as the
Isla del Provisor. The power plant may be reached by boat or by crossing a
footbridge, impassable for vehicles, at the westerly end of the island.

On the 30th of September, 1905, plaintiff, with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about
12 years of age, went to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting one Murphy,
an employee of the defendant, who and promised to make them a cylinder for a
miniature engine. Mr. Murphy was not in his quarters, the boys, impelled apparently
by youthful curiosity and perhaps by the unusual interest which both seem to have
taken in machinery, spent some time in wandering about the company's premises.
The visit was made on a Sunday afternoon, and it does not appear that they saw or
spoke to anyone after leaving the power house where they had asked for Mr.
Murphy.
They walked across the open space in the neighborhood of the place where the
company dumped in the cinders and ashes from its furnaces. Here they found some
twenty or thirty brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground. They are intended
for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a
considerable explosive power. The boys picked up all they could find and carried
them home. After crossing the footbridge, they met a little girl named Jessie Adrian,
less than 9 years old, and all three went to the home of the boy Manuel. The boys
then made a series of experiments with the caps until they opened one of the caps
with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a yellowish substance they got
matches,Jessie proposed putting a match while David held the cap when Manuel
applied a lighted match to the contents. An explosion followed, causing more or less
serious injuries to all three. Manuel had his hand burned and wounded, and David
was struck in the face by several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured
his right eye to such an extent as to the necessitate its removal by the surgeons who
were called in to care for his wounds.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendantcan be held liable for damages? Is the Doctrine of
Attractive Nuisance applied in this case?
RULING:
No. We are satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had sufficient capacity and
understanding to be sensible of the danger to which he exposed himself when he put
the match to the contents of the cap; that he was sui juris  in the sense that his age
and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the
exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which
resulted from his own deliberate act; and that the injury incurred by him must be
held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and reckless act,
so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for
the negligence act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises,
nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the proximate and principal cause of the accident
which inflicted the injury.

G.R. No. 219649, July 26, 2017

AL DELA CRUZ vs CAPT. RENATO OCTA VIANO and WILMA OCTA VIANO

FACTS:

Captain Renato Octaviano, a military dentist assigned at the Office of the Chief
Dental Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon
City, respondent Wilma Octaviano, Renato's mother and Janet Octaviano,
Renato's sister, rode a tricycle driven byEduardo Y. Padilla. Respondent Wilma
and Janet were inside the sidecar of the vehicle, whileRenato rode at the back of
the tricycle driver. They then preceded to Naga Road towards thedirection of CAA
and BF Homes. Renato was asking his mother for a change to complete
his₱l0.00 bill when he looked at the road and saw a light from an oncoming car
which was goingtoo fast. The car, driven by petitioner, hit the back portion of
the tricycle where Renato wasriding. The force of the impact caused the
tricycle to tum around and land on the pavement near the gutter. Thus, Renato
was thrown from the tricycle and landed on the gutter about twometers away.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is negligent in driving his car.

HELD:

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand; where by such other person suff ers injury. Under Arti cle 1173 of
the Civil Code, it consists of the “omission of that diligence which is required
by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
person, of the time and of the place." The Civil Code makes liability for
negligence clear under Article 2176, and Article 20. Petitioner was negligent; the CA
correctly appreciated the pieces of evidence presented by the respondents,
thus: First, with regard to the damage or injury, there is no question that the
plaintiffs suffered damage due to the incident on April 1, 1999. Plaintiff Renato
Octaviano's right leg was crushed by the impact of the Honda Civic driven by
defendant Dela Cruz against the tricycle where the Octavianos were riding and as
a result thereof, Renato's right leg was amputated. Plaintiff Wilma suffered
traumatic injuries/hematoma on different parts of her body as borne by the
evidence submitt ed to the trial court. The damages or injuries were duly
proved by preponderant evidence. Second, with regard to the wrongful act or
omission imputable to the negligence of defendant Al Dela Cruz, We hold that the
trial court missed the glaring fact that defendant DelaCruz was guilty of negligence