G.R. No. L-10073, L-10074, L-10075
Date: December 24, 1915
Case Title: BUTARO YAMADA, KENJIRO KARABAYASHI, and TAKUTARU UYEHARA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant, and BACHRACH GARAGE & TAXICAB CO., defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On January 2, 1913, plaintiffs Butaro Yamada, Kenjiro Karabayashi, and Takutaru Uyehara, along with three companions, hired an automobile from the Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. for a trip to Cavite Viejo. The vehicle, driven by a chauffeur supplied by the company, was struck by a train of The Manila Railroad Co. while crossing the railroad tracks in San Juan, Cavite Viejo, on the return trip, resulting in injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued both companies for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint against The Manila Railroad Co. but held the taxicab company liable, finding that its driver was grossly negligent. The court found that the driver approached the crossing at high speed without slowing down or taking any precautions, despite the view of the tracks being obstructed by bushes and trees. The taxicab company appealed, arguing, among other things, that the driver’s negligence should be imputed to the plaintiffs and that there was a customary practice among drivers to cross railroad tracks without reducing speed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the driver of the taxicab was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
2. Whether the alleged negligence of the driver is imputable to the plaintiffs.
3. Whether the damages awarded by the trial court were proper.

RULING:
1. Yes, the driver was grossly negligent, and his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding. The driver failed to exercise ordinary care and prudence required when crossing a railroad track, especially where the view was obstructed. He did not reduce speed, lessen noise, or listen for an approaching train. The Court held that a dangerous practice cannot become a protective custom; thus, the alleged custom of crossing without precautions did not excuse the driver’s negligence.
2. No, the driver’s negligence is not imputable to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, as passengers, had no control over the driver’s actions. They hired the vehicle with a driver supplied by the company, and there was no evidence that they were aware of the danger or could have prevented the negligence. The relationship was that of carrier and passengers, not master and servant.
3. The damages awarded were modified. The Supreme Court found the evidence for certain damage claims insufficient and reduced the awards:
– Butaro Yamada: Award reduced to P299 (covering 2 months’ lost wages at P100/month, P49 hospital bill, and P50 doctor’s bill).
– Takutaru Uyehara: Award reduced to P950 (covering 3 months’ lost wages at P200/month and P350 for hospital/medical expenses).
– Kenjiro Karabayashi: Award reduced to P400 (covering 2.5 months’ lost wages at P160/month). Claims for medical expenses were disallowed due to lack of credible evidence.

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment accordingly, holding the Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. solely liable for the damages as modified. The dismissal of the complaint against The Manila Railroad Co. was affirmed.