Title
Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-21291
Decision Date
Mar 28, 1969
A fatal collision occurred at a railroad crossing when a jeep driven by Ralph Corliss, Jr. failed to stop, despite a locomotive’s warning signals. The court ruled no negligence by the railroad, attributing the accident to Corliss’s failure to exercise due care.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21291)

Facts:

  • Parties and claim
    • Preciolita V. Corliss, plaintiff-appellant, sued for damages for wrongful death of her husband.
    • The Manila Railroad Company, defendant-appellee, was charged with negligence for collision causing death.
    • The complaint sought damages in the amount of P282,065.40.
  • Relevant background facts
    • The deceased, Ralph W. Corliss, Jr., was twenty-one years old and married to plaintiff in December 1956.
    • Corliss, Jr. was an air police of the Clark Air Force Base.
    • The collision occurred close to midnight on February 21, 1957, at the railroad crossing in Balibago, Angeles, Pampanga, in front of Clark Air Force Base.
    • Corliss, Jr. was driving a jeep returning to the Base with a P. C. soldier; the jeep struck a locomotive and caught fire.
    • Corliss, Jr. died of serious burns at the Base Hospital the next day; the soldier sustained serious injuries and burns.
  • Testimony for plaintiff-appellant
    • Ronald J. Ennis testified by deposition that he was 40–50 yards from the tracks at Clark Field entrance, saw the jeep approaching, observed it slow and make a brief stop (described as shifting into first gear), saw the train coming from San Fernando, and heard a warning which he considered insufficient to avoid the accident.
    • Virgilio de la Paz testified that he was at the Balibago checkpoint, saw the train coming from Angeles and the jeep toward Clark Field, heard the locomotive whistle, saw the collision, observed the jeep running fast and heard its horn, and stated the jeep did not stop at the crossing.
  • Testimony for defendant-appellee
    • Teodorico Capin, the engineer at the engine, testified that he blew the siren about 300 meters before the crossing and repeated it in compliance with regulations until he saw the jeep suddenly spurt.
    • Capin testified the locomotive had been...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Primary legal issues presented
    • Whether The Manila Railroad Company was guilty of negligence under the Civil Code, thereby liable for damages under Article 2176 (and formerly Article 1902).
    • Whether the trial court erred in finding no negligence and in its credibility determinations.
  • Factual and subsidiary legal issues urged by plaintiff-appellant
    • Whether the trial court erred in accepting testimony that the locomotive whistle was sounded and brakes applied at 300 meters before the crossing.
    • Whether the absence of lowered crossing bars and absence of a guard at the gatehouse imposed additional duty on Corliss, Jr. to stop.
    • Whether the motorman (Teodorico Capin) was qualified to operate the engine at the time of the ac...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.