Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1719)
Facts:
M. H. Rakes v. The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company, G.R. No. 1719, January 23, 1907, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tracey, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee, M. H. Rakes, was one of eight negro laborers employed by defendant-appellant The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company to unload and transport heavy iron rails from a barge to the company’s yard near the Malecon in Manila. Rakes was injured when two hand cars carrying seven rails each (each rail weighing about 560 pounds) sagged at a point near the water’s edge; a crosspiece or piling supporting the stringer was dislodged (apparently by a recent typhoon), a tie broke, the rails slid off and crushed Rakes’ leg, which was later amputated near the knee.At trial the company described the tramway’s construction (blocks, stringers, ties, and rails), admitted there were no side guards on the cars and no fish plates at certain joints, and showed the joints of rails were aligned over joints of the stringers. The trial court found the immediate cause of the accident was the dislodgement of the crosspiece or piling by raised bay water after a typhoon, and also found that no adequate inspection or prompt repair had been made; the judge therefore concluded the company had failed in its duty to maintain the track and awarded the plaintiff 5,000 pesos in damages. The defendant contended that any remedy lay in criminal prosecution (with employer only subsidiarily liable), that the risk was assumed by the employee or was due to a fellow servant, and that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident.
The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the judgment of the court below (trial court), which had awarded damages to plaintiff; the Supreme Court reviewe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the injured employee maintain a civil action for damages against his employer for negligence in failing to provide and maintain safe appliances, or is the remedy limited to a criminal prosecution with the employer only subsidiarily liable?
- Was the defendant employer negligent in failing to maintain the tramway and repair the visible depression after notice?
- Did the plaintiff’s contributory negligence bar recovery entirely or only warrant a reduction of damages?
- Does the fellow-servant rule relieve the employer of liability fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)