G.R. No. L-6666, October 24, 1911
GEORGE E. BROWN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff George E. Brown sought damages for injuries to his horse and calesa (horse-drawn carriage) resulting from a collision with a streetcar owned by defendant Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company. The accident occurred around 11:00 PM on Calle Concepcion. Brown’s calesa, driven by his cochero Mariano Alejo, was traveling west on the left side of the street (south side) toward Bagumbayan. A streetcar of the defendant was traveling east on the east-bound track. The calesa was positioned between the curb and the west-bound track. According to the cochero, while attempting to pass a refuse cart covered with a flapping tarpaulin, his horse became frightened, reared, and moved back and forth across the street. He claimed he shouted warnings to the motorman to stop, but the streetcar continued and struck the calesa. The defendant’s evidence, including testimony from a passenger in the calesa (Mr. Strawn) and the motorman, contradicted this account. They testified that the horse suddenly reared and leaped sideways into the side of the streetcar as it passed, that no warning shouts were heard, and that the motorman had no time to stop. The physical evidence showed damage to the side of the streetcar several feet from the front corner, consistent with the horse striking the car.

ISSUE

Was the defendant company negligent, and therefore liable for damages, due to the motorman’s failure to stop the streetcar upon seeing a supposedly unmanageable horse on or near the tracks?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint. The Court found the plaintiff’s theory of negligence untenable as it was based on facts disproved by the clear weight of the evidence. The testimony of the cochero was deemed unreliable and inconsistent with the physical evidence and the credible testimony of other witnesses. The Court concluded that the accident was caused by the sudden, unexpected action of the frightened horse leaping into the side of the streetcar, not by any negligence on the part of the motorman. The motorman neither saw an unmanageable horse for a significant distance nor heard any warning, and thus had no opportunity to avoid the collision. Therefore, the defendant was not liable.