GR L 4290; (July, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑4290
FACTS:
– On 1 April 1907 the plaintiff, Robert V. Dell, sued the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. (MELRC) for ₱500 damages after a MELRC street‑car struck Dell’s hearse on the intersection of Calle Cabildo and Calle Victoria, Manila.
– The street‑car, operated by MELRC employees, was alleged to have been travelling at “high speed” and failed to sound its gong.
– Witnesses (Alfred B. Jones, Lorenzo Heronimo) testified that the car hit the rear of the hearse, smashed its wheels and forced it to overturn; the hearse driver was thrown and injured.
– The lower Court (Court of First Instance) found the car was “going faster than a walking pace” and that, had it been slower, the collision could have been avoided. It concluded MELRC was negligent, awarded the plaintiff ₱300 (reduced from the ₱500 claimed) and costs.
– MELRC appealed, alleging: (1) no negligence; (2) plaintiff’s driver was negligent and contributed; (3) error in judgment; (4) denial of a new trial.
ISSUE:
1. Whether MELRC’s street‑car was negligent in the collision.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s driver was contributory negligent, thereby barring or reducing the plaintiff’s recovery.
RULING:
– The Supreme Court affirmed that both the railway car operator and the crossing‑vehicle driver owe a duty of reasonable care at street‑railway intersections; each must guard against the other’s presence. (citing O’Neil v. The Dry Dock Railroad Co.)
– Evidence showed the car was travelling “at a high rate of speed” and failed to give adequate warning, satisfying the negligence element against MELRC.
– However, the plaintiff’s driver failed to look out for the approaching car, proceeded at a fast trot, and either did not hear the gong or ignored its warning. This constituted gross contributory negligence.
– Applying the doctrine of contributory negligence (as in Rakes v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co.), the plaintiff’s negligence completely bars recovery.
– Consequently, the judgment of the Court of First Instance awarding ₱300 to the plaintiff was reversed. MELRC was not held liable for damages.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that while MELRC’s car was negligent, the plaintiff’s own negligence was so severe that it precluded any award of damages.