G.R. No. 1719 : M. H. Rakes v. The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company

FACTS:
The plaintiff, one of eight negro laborers employed by the defendant, was tasked with transporting iron rails from a barge to the company’s yard in Manila. The work was performed using a single hand‑car that carried seven rails (each 560 lb) laid lengthwise on two cross‑pieces, without side guards. While the car was moving near the waterfront, the tramway track sagged and a tie broke; the car tipped, the rails slid off and struck the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was later amputated. Evidence showed that the track’s foundation consisted of wooden blocks and pilings, that the joints of the rails were directly above the joints of the underlying stringers, and that a depression in the track (about ½ to 1½ in.) had been noticed the day before the accident. The plaintiff testified that he urged the foreman to straighten the cross‑piece and reset the block, but no repair was made. No systematic inspection of the tramway after the recent typhoon was proven.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, as employer, breached a duty of care by (a) failing to secure the load and to construct or maintain the tramway in a safe condition, and (b) failing to inspect and promptly repair the known defect, thereby rendering it liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under the Civil Code; and whether any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would bar recovery.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code, an employer is civilly liable for damages caused by the negligence of its employees in the performance of their duties. The defendant’s failure to repair the known track depression after notice constituted a breach of the standard of diligence required of a “good father of a family.” Consequently, the employer is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court rejected the contention that contributory negligence, or the absence of a specific statutory provision, could defeat the employer’s liability. The judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed, and the defendant was ordered to answer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.