Case Digest (G.R. No. 6666)
Facts:
George E. Brown v. The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, G.R. No. 6666, October 24, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila (presided by A. S. Crossfield), which, after trial, dismissed Brown’s complaint on the merits without costs. Brown sued to recover damages for injury to his horse and calesa that occurred in a nighttime collision with a street car owned and operated by the defendant company.
On the night in question (about 11:00 p.m.) the calesa, with driver Mariano Alejo and occupant Leander W. Strawn, was proceeding west on the left side of Calle Concepcion toward Bagumbayan, following two refuse (bull) carts. A defendant street car had just turned into Concepcion from Bagumbayan and was proceeding east on the east-bound track. There were two tracks; the calesa was between the west-bound track and the curb, so for a collision with the east-bound car the calesa would necessarily have to cross the west-bound track and the vehicle space between tracks.
At trial witnesses gave conflicting accounts. Plaintiff’s cochero (Alejo) and two cart drivers described a prolonged period in which the horse shied and moved backwards and forwards, that Alejo repeatedly shouted to the motorman to stop, and that the car struck the calesa. Defense and disinterested witnesses — notably the calesa occupant Leander W. Strawn, Dr. H. E. Schiffbauer (a passerby), and the motorman Modesto Medina — testified that the calesa attempted to pass a bull-cart at the moment the street car reached the same point, the horse was quiet until it shied suddenly at a white tarpaulin and leaped into the side of the car, and the motorman had rung his bell and was proceeding at the regulated night speed.
Physical condition of the car was introduced: damage was found several feet down the right-hand side (broken grab handles) with the front corner...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff prove that the motorman and the defendant were negligent so as to make them liable for the injury to the horse and calesa?
- Was the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint supported by the preponderance of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)