GR L 21291; (March, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969
PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On February 21, 1957, near midnight, Ralph W. Corliss, Jr., a 21-year-old air police officer, was driving a jeep back to Clark Air Force Base in Pampanga. At the railroad crossing in Balibago, Angeles, his jeep collided with a locomotive of the Manila Railroad Company. Corliss died from burns the following day, and a passenger, a PC soldier, sustained serious injuries. Preciolita V. Corliss, the widow, filed a complaint for damages against the railroad company, alleging negligence. The lower court dismissed the complaint, finding that the deceased, in his eagerness to beat the oncoming locomotive, took a risk and miscalculated, and that satisfactory proof of negligence on the part of the railroad company was lacking. The plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant Manila Railroad Company was negligent and therefore liable for damages arising from the fatal collision at the railroad crossing.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that the defendant-appellee was guilty of negligence. The findings of the lower court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh their credibility, were entitled to great respect and presumption of correctness. The evidence showed that the locomotive driver blew the siren about 300 meters before the crossing and applied the brakes, but the jeep suddenly spurted forward and was caught on the tracks. The Court cited established definitions of negligence as the failure to observe the degree of care which circumstances demand and found no such failure on the part of the railroad company. The Court also noted that the deceased, a young man, may have been tempted to take risks, leading to his own miscalculation. The alleged failures, such as the crossing bars not being down or the absence of a guard, did not, individually or collectively, meet the quantum of proof required to establish the railroad company’s negligence.