AGA7

DEL PRADO vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO. Obligation of company to passenger

G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929
PONENTE: Street, J. The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and its patrons is of a contractual
nature; and a failure on the part of the carrier to use due care in carrying the passengers safely
FACTS: is a breach of duty (culpa contractual) under Arts. 1101 1103, 1104 of the Old Civil Code.

Appellant Manila Electric Company is engaged in The duty that the carrier owes to its patrons extends to boarding the cars as well as to
the operation of street cars in the City of Manila for the those alighting therefrom (Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.).
conveyance of passengers.
Culpa aquiliana vs. culpa contractual
One morning, after one of its cars (being driven
by Teodorico Florenciano) had stopped at a designated Culpa aquiliana Culpa contractual
place for loading and unloading passengers, it resumed Liability arises from a breach of
it course at a moderate speed. The car had only Liability arises from a mere tort positive obligation or contractual
travelled a short distance when the plaintiff (Ignacio duty
Del Prado) ran across the street to catch the car, his Defense of diligence of a good
approach being made from the left. His movement was so timed that he arrived at the front father of a family is available to Defense of diligence of a good
entrance of the car the moment when the car was passing. employer to relieve himself from father of a family is not available
liability (Art. 1903, Old Civil Code)
Upon approaching the car, plaintiff raised his hand as an indication to the driver of his Governed by Arts. 1902 and 1903 of
Governed by Art. 1101 (Old CC)
desire to board the car (NOTE: Plaintiff was not in a proper loading/unloading zone). In the Old Civil Code
response, the driver eased up a little, but did not stop. Thereafter, the plaintiff seized, with his Court is given a discretion to
left hand, the front perpendicular handpost, and at the same time, placing his left foot No general discretion is given by the
mitigate liability according to the
upon the platform. But before his position had become secure (even before his right foot Code to the courts
circumstances (Art. 1103, ld CC)
had reached the platform), the driver stepped on the gas pedal, which caused the car to
slightly lurch forward. This sudden impulse caused plaintiff’s foot to slip, fall to the ground, IN THIS CASE, defendant pleaded diligence of a good father of a family as a special
to be finally crushed by the moving car. defense; BUT, this proof is irrelevant in view of the fact that the liability involved was
derived from a breach of obligation under Art 1101.
Plaintiff filed an action for damages against defendant for its alleged negligence it the
operation of its cars. The driver argued that he did not see the plaintiff attempting to board the Contributory negligence of plaintiff: should be treated as a mitigating
car and that he did not know of the incident until after the plaintiff had been hurt and someone circumstance under Art. 1103
called to him to stop. Defendant claimed that it exercised due care in training and instructing
its drivers. Plaintiff’s negligence in attempting to board the moving car was not the proximate
cause. The direct and proximate cause of the injury was the act of the defendant’s driver in
ISSUE: WON defendant should be held liable for damages. YES. putting on the power prematurely.

HELD:
Premature acceleration of the car constitutes a breach of duty
While there is no obligation on the part of a street railway company to stop its cars to take
on intending passengers at other points than those appointed for stoppage, nevertheless, when
a driver sees a person attempting to board the car while in motion, and at a place not appointed
for stopping, he should not do any act to increase the peril of such person; and if, in violation
of this duty, the driver in charge of the car prematurely accelerates speed while the intending
passenger is in the act of boarding the car, with the result that he slips and gets his food
crushed under the wheel of the moving car, the company is civilly liable for damages.
A person boarding a moving car must be taken to assume the risk of injury from
boarding the car under the conditions open to his view, but he cannot fairly be held to assume
the risk that the driver, having the situation in view, will increase his peril by accelerating the
speed of the car before he is planted safely on the platform.
This situation is one where the negligent act of the company’s employee succeeded the
negligent act of the plaintiff, and the former must be considered the proximate cause of the
injury. The rule here is applicable to the DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE, where the
contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that
defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party.

CONCLUSION: Judgment of CFI (awarding P10,000 to plaintiff) is affirmed.

AGA7

Dissenting opinion

Johnson, J:

The plaintiff should suffer the damages which he himself, through his own negligence,
occasioned without any negligence, imprudence or malice on the part of the defendant for the
following reasons:

1) The dirver managed the car carefuly and ordinary prudence at the moment of the
alleged accident occurred;
2) The plaintiff acted with imprudence and lack of due care in attempting to board a
street car while the same was in motion;
3) He contributed to his own injury, without any negligence or malice or imprudence
on the part of the defendant

Therefore, defendant should be absolved from liability.