Preciolita V. Corliss V.

The Manila Railroad

Co. (1969)
FACTS:
 Feb 21, 1957 near midnight: although the conductor applied the brakes Ralph W.
Corliss' jeep collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company 
 in his eagerness to beat, despite the tooting of the horn and the oncoming
locomotive, took the risk and attempted to reach the other side, but unfortunately
he became the victim of his own miscalculation
 Case was filed by Preciolita V. Corliss, 21 year old widow
ISSUE: W/N the Manila Railroad Co. is negligent

HELD: NO. Decision is affirmed

 negligence - The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance justly
demand whereby such other person suffers injury.
 Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of
the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably
require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the
failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
 The weight of authorities is to the effect that a railroad track is in itself a warning
or a signal of danger to those who go upon it, and that those who, for reasons of
their own, ignore such warning, do so at their own risk and responsibility
 Corliss Jr., who undoubtedly had crossed the checkpoint frequently, if not daily,
must have known that locomotive engines and trains usually pass at that particular
crossing where the accident had taken place
 it was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident — and this consisted simply in
stopping his vehicle before the crossing and allowing the train to move on.  A prudent man
under similar circumstances would have acted in this manner 

PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS,  plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
THE MANILA RAILROAD Co.,  defendant-appellee.

No. L-21291. March 28, 1969.

FERNANDO, J.

Rule Synopsis
Failure to observe the proper diligence to avoid the injury, when it is
incumbent upon the injured person to do so, constitutes negligence.

Case Summary

At around midnight, a jeepney driven by Ralph Corliss (21 y.o.),

collided with a locomotive of Manila Rairoad. This resulted to the
former’s death due to serious burns.

Ralph was an air police of the Clark Air Force Base. The accident
happened while he was returning the jeep to the Base. The PC
soldier with him was also injured.

Ralph’s wife, thus filed a civil case to recover damages from Manila
Railroad.

The two witnesses presented by Corliss testified that: while Ralph

slowed down before reaching the crossing, he did not fully stop but
merely shifted into first gear; and that the jeep was running fast and
heard the tooting of the horn but did not stop at the railroad
crossing.

The witness for Manila Railroad testified that the locomotive was in
good condition, and that he blew the siren repeatedly in compliance
with the regulations until he saw the jeep dashed in front, at which
time it was still caught on the tracks despite his application of
brakes.

The lower court dismissed the complaint, finding that Ralph’s

negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The SC
affirmed.

Issues resolved —

Procedural note: SC deferred to the lower court’s finding of facts, as the credibility of the witnesses were not in
question, and nothing on record arbitrary or abusive conduct on the part of the trial judge, among others.
Was Manila Railroad negligent?

HELD – NO.
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, whereby such
other person suffers injury. (United States v. Juanillo; United States
v. Barias)

It is also the want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a

relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care
and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where
the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the
failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the
circumstances. (Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co.)

Using these definitions, the SC held that, given the factual findings,
no negligence can be imputed to Manila Railroad.

On Corliss’ arguments:

1. the whistle was not sounded and the brakes were not applied.
2. the crossing bars were not put down
3. there was no guard at the gate-house

As to the first argument, the SC held that this is factual in character

which cannot be resolved in the present petition. As to the second
and third arguments, the SC held that these circumstances does not
excuse Ralph from his duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision. The
Court also said that these circumstances, individually or in
combination, were not sufficient to justify a finding of negligence on
Manila Railroad’s part. These factors cited by Corliss were not
decisive or determinative of the case.

[Note: the SC made a discussion of the standard of care expected of people crossing railroad tracks. There
were attempts to standardize but in the end, the courts were left with the basic idea that negligence cases must
be judged on a case-by-case basis: “every case on questions of negligence is to be decided in accordance
with the peculiar circumstances that present themselves. There can be no hard and fast rule.”]

As summary, SC cited the lower court decision: “Predicated on

the testimonies of the plaintiff’s witnesses, on the knowledge of the
deceased and his familiarity with the setup of the checkpoint, the
existence of the tracks; and on the further f act that the locomotive
had blown its siren or whistle, which was heard by said witnesses, it
is clear that Corliss, Jr. was so sufficiently warned in advance of the
oncoming train that it was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible
accident—and this consisted simply in stopping his vehicle before
the crossing and allowing the train to move on. A prudent man
under similar circumstances would have acted in this manner. This,
unfortunately, Corliss, Jr. failed to do.”