TAYLOR v.

THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

G.R. No. L-4977
22 March 1910
CARSON, J.:

Definition of terms:
Quod (si) quis ex culpa sua sentit, non intelligitur damnum sentire   - “He who suffers damage by his own fault, has
no right to complain.”

A. 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. Plaintiff, David Taylor, was at the time when he received the injuries complained of, 15 years
of age, the son of a mechanical engineer, more mature than the average boy of his age, and having considerable
aptitude and training in mechanics. On the 30th of September, 1905, plaintiff, with a boy named Manuel
Claparols, about 12 years of age, crossed the footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting one
Murphy, an employee of the defendant. Mr. Murphy was not on his quarters, the boys spent some time in
wandering about the company's premises. 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. These caps are approximately of the size and appearance of small
pistol cartridges and each has attached to it two long thin wires by means of which it may be discharged by the use
of electricity. They are intended for use in the explosion of blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a
considerable explosive power. Boys picked up all they could find, hung them on stick, of which each took end, 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.
They trust the ends of the wires into an electric light socket and obtained no result . They next tried to
break the cap with a stone and failed. Manuel looked for a hammer, but could not find one. Then they opened
one of the caps with a knife, and finding that it was filled with a yellowish substance they got matches, and David
held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match to the contents. An explosion followed, causing more or
less serious injuries to all three. Jessie, who when the boys proposed putting a match to the contents of the cap,
became frightened and started to run away, received a slight cut in the neck. 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.

The trial judge in his decision was in plaintiff's favor, upon the provisions of article 1089 of the Civil
Code read together with articles 1902, 1903, and 1908 of that code. Appellate court reversed its
decision.

A.1 ARGUMENTS/CONTENTIONS

PARTY A PARTY B
Plaintiff's youth and inexperience, his entry upon The facts proven at the trial do not established the liability of the
defendant company's premises, and the defendant company under the provisions of these articles: article
intervention of his action between the negligent 1089 of the Civil Code read together with articles 1902, 1903, and
act of defendant in leaving the caps exposed on 1908 of that code.
its premises and the accident which resulted in
his injury should not be held to have contributed
in any wise to the accident, which should be
deemed to be the direct result of
defendant's negligence in leaving the caps
exposed at the place where they were
found by the plaintiff, and this latter the
proximate cause of the accident which
occasioned the injuries sustained by him.
(IN CASE OF QUERIES)

Counsel for appellant endeavors to weaken or destroy the

probative value of the facts on which these conclusions are based
by intimidating or rather assuming that the blasting work on the
company's well and on its McKinley extension was done by
contractors

(The workman employed in blasting the well was

regularly employed by J. G. White and Co., a firm of
contractors, he did the work on the well directly and
immediately under the supervision and control of one of
defendant company's foremen, therefore they are not
liable.)

D. ISSUE

Whether, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

E. RULING

NO, the plaintiffs’ action in cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the proximate cause
of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff, and that the defendant, therefore
is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus incurred. 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.

It will settled in Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur sentire doctrine, a just thing is
that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he cannot demand
reparation therefor from another and according to the doctrine expressed in article 1902 of the Civil Code, fault
or negligence is a source of obligation when between such negligence and the injury there exists the relation of
cause and effect; but if the injury produced should not be the result of acts or omissions of a third party, the latter
has no obligation to repair the same, although such acts or omission were imprudent or unlawful, and much less
when it is shown that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligence of the injured party himself.

CASE DISMISSED.