Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9671)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9671)
Facts:
Cesar L. Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671, August 23, 1957, the Supreme Court En Banc, Angelo, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant Cesar L. Isaac boarded A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. Bus No. 31 on May 31, 1951 as a fare-paying passenger traveling from Ligao, Albay toward Pili, Camarines Sur. Before reaching his destination the bus collided with an oncoming pick-up truck; as a result Isaac’s left arm was completely severed and fell into the rear of the bus. He received emergency treatment including blood transfusion and subsequent hospitalization and surgery, incurring out-of-pocket medical expenses of P623.40 (medical fees were paid by defendant).Isaac sued the carrier for damages on the theory of contractual liability for failure to transport him safely, claiming gross incompetence and recklessness of the bus driver and seeking, among other items, compensation for medical expenses, loss and diminution of earning capacity, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. Defendant set up as defenses that the collision was caused by the pick-up driver’s negligence and by Isaac’s contributory negligence, and that the accident was inevitable or unforeseeable despite the carrier’s exercise of care.
After trial the court found that the bus driver had done everything possible to avoid the collision and that the accident was proximately due to the pick-up driver’s negligence; the court dismissed Isaac’s complaint with costs. Isaac appealed to the Supreme Court from that judgment. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, the new Civil Code provisions governing common carriers (Arts. 1733, 1755–56), doctrines on sudden emergency, and authorities on contributory negligence, and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
Issues:
- Should the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations be disturbed on appeal?
- Under Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code, is the carrier liable for the passenger’s loss of an arm given the circumstances of the collision?
- Did the plaintiff’s conduct constitute contributory negligence that bars or reduces recovery?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)