Case Digest (G.R. No. 165952)
Facts:
In Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, decided June 13, 1952, the petitioner Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. owned and operated an ice‐plant factory in San Pablo, Laguna. On the factory premises were two open water tanks, each nine feet deep and used for engine cooling, with edges only one foot above ground level. Although the factory yard was fenced, the wide entrance gate remained constantly open and unguarded, allowing free access to vehicles and pedestrians. On April 16, 1943, Mario Balandan, a six‐year‐old boy and son of respondents Guillermo Balandan and Anselma Anila, entered the premises with other children to bathe in one of the tanks. He drowned by asphyxia secondary to drowning. The Court of First Instance of Laguna and thereafter the Court of Appeals found Hidalgo Enterprises liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine and awarded P2,000 in damages to the parents. Hidalgo Enterprises appealed by certiorari to theCase Digest (G.R. No. 165952)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner: Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., owner of an ice-plant factory in San Pablo, Laguna.
- Respondents: Guillermo Balandan and Anselma Anila, parents of the deceased child, Mario Balandan.
- Premises and Conditions
- Factory compound enclosed by a fence with a continuously open gate; no gatekeeper or guard on duty.
- Two nine-foot-deep water cooling tanks installed within the compound; tanks were unfenced, uncovered, and their rims stood only one foot above ground level.
- Accident
- On April 16, 1943, six-year-old Mario Balandan entered the premises with other children to bathe in one of the tanks.
- Mario sank to the bottom, drowned, and was later recovered dead; cause of death: asphyxia secondary to drowning.
Issues:
- Attractive Nuisance
- Whether the water cooling tanks constitute an “attractive nuisance,” rendering the owner liable for injuries to a trespassing child.
- Contributory Negligence
- Whether the parents’ failure to supervise their son constitutes contributory negligence barring recovery.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)