Case Digest (G.R. No. 101005) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In David Taylor v. The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, G.R. No. 4977, decided on March 22, 1910, the 15-year-old plaintiff and appellee, David Taylor, a mechanically apt minor represented by his father, brought suit against the defendant and appellant, a foreign corporation operating a street railway and electric light system in Manila. Its power plant was on Isla del Provisor, accessible only by boat or a footbridge. On September 30, 1905, Taylor and 12-year-old Manuel Claparols crossed the footbridge seeking Murphy, an employee who had promised to fashion a cylinder for their miniature engine. Finding Murphy absent, the boys roamed the company’s premises—including its open coal-handling area and ash dump—where they discovered some twenty to thirty brass fulminating caps, each fitted with wires for electric detonation. After debating ownership, they loaded the caps onto a stick, carried them across the footbridge, and met nine-year-old Jessie Adrian. At Manuel’s hom Case Digest (G.R. No. 101005) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and setting
- Plaintiff/Appellee: David Taylor, a 15-year-old minor represented by his father; son of a mechanical engineer, mature and trained in mechanics.
- Defendant/Appellant: Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, a foreign corporation operating a street railway and electric light system in Manila; power plant located on Isla del Provisor, accessible only by boat or a narrow pedestrian bridge.
- Chronology of the accident
- September 30, 1905 (Sunday): Taylor and Manuel Claparols (12 years old) cross the footbridge seeking Murphy, a company employee; Murphy absent.
- Boys wander company premises, observe coal-handling crane, then find 20–30 brass fulminating (detonating) caps scattered in a cinder-dump area. They hang caps on a stick, each boy carrying one end.
- After crossing back, they meet Jessie Adrian (
- Taylor holds an opened cap; Manuel applies a lighted match, causing an explosion. Injuries: Taylor loses right eye; Manuel’s hand burned; Jessie receives slight neck cut.
- Premises conditions and company knowledge
- Similar caps used months earlier in well-sinking on company premises and in track-extension work; no evidence of contractor independence.
- Caps appeared discarded as defective among ashes and cinders; no fencing or warnings; children known to roam freely on the uninclosed grounds.
- Company offered no rebuttal; inference drawn that caps belonged to or were under control of the defendant and left negligently.
- Plaintiff’s background and recovery
- Taylor had served four months as a cabin boy; later worked as mechanical draftsman (₱2.50/day) one month after injury.
- Described as taller, more mature, and above-average intelligence for his age.
Issues:
- Basis of liability under the Philippine Civil Code
- Whether defendant’s act or omission in leaving explosive caps exposed constitutes negligence per Arts. 1089, 1902, 1903, and 1908.
- Whether the causal link (“proximate cause”) exists between that negligence and plaintiff’s injury.
- Effect of plaintiff’s own conduct and age
- Applicability of the Turntable/Torpedo doctrine: duty owed to child trespassers when owner knows children will enter.
- Whether Taylor’s deliberate act of igniting the cap breaks the chain of causation and constitutes contributory negligence barring recovery.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)