This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
William Van Buskirk , defendant and appellant Facts: Both parties agree that on the 11 th day of September, 1908, Carmen Ong deMartinez, was riding a carromata in Ermita, Manila. When a delivery wagon owned bythe defendant which was used for the transportation of fodder and to which two horsesare attached, was coming from the opposite direction, the carromata in which theplaintiff was seated went close to the sidewalk in order to let the delivery wagon passby. However, instead of passing by, the horses ran into the carromata occupied by theplaintiff with her child and overturned it, causing a serious cut upon the plaintiff·s headand injuring the carromata.However, the defendant contends that the cochero, who was driving his deliverywagon at the time of the accident, was actually a good servant and was considered asafe and reliable cochero. He also claims that the cochero was tasked to deliver someforage at Calle Herran, and for that purpose the defendant·s employee tied the drivinglines of the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon for the purpose of unloadingthe forage to be delivered. However, a vehicle passed by the driver and made noisesthat frightened the horses causing them to run. The employee failed to stop the horsessince he was thrown upon the ground.From the stated facts, the court ruled that the defendant was guilty ofnegligence. The court specifically cited a paragraph of Article 1903 of the Civil Code: Finally, masters of directors or arts and trades are liable for the damages causedby their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. Hence, this is appeal to reverse such decision. I ssue: Whether or not the employer, who has furnished a gentle and tractable team (ofhorses) and a trusty and capable driver, is liable for the negligence of such driver. Held: It was held that the cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving thehorses in the manner described by the evidence in this case. It is believed that acts or performances which, in a long time, have not been destructive and which areapproved by the society, are considered as custom. Hence, they cannot be considered as unreasonable or imprudent. The reason why they have been permittedby the society is that they are beneficial rather that prejudicial.One could not easily hold someone negligent because of some act that led toan injury or accident. It would be unfair therefore to render the cochero negligentbecause of such circumstances.The court holds that it is a universal practice of merchants during that time todeliver products through horse-drawn vehicles; and it is also considered universalpractice to leave the horses in the manner in which they were left during the accident.It has been practiced for a long time and generally has not been the cause ofaccidents or injuriesThe judgment is therefore reversed