Case Digest (G.R. No. 10073)
Facts:
Butaro Yamada v. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10073; Kenjiro Karabayashi v. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10074; Takutaru Uyehara v. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10075, December 24, 1915, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.
The three actions arise from the same collision: on January 2, 1913, the three plaintiffs, together with companions, hired an automobile from Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. for a round trip to Cavite Viejo; the chauffeur was supplied by the taxicab company. On the return trip the automobile was struck at a railroad crossing in the barrio of San Juan, municipality of Cavite Viejo, by a train operated by The Manila Railroad Co., and the plaintiffs were injured.
At the Court of First Instance (trial court) the court found that the chauffeur drove onto the railroad tracks without reducing speed or taking other precautions, that he was guilty of gross negligence constituting the proximate cause of the collision, and that the taxicab company had, by sanctioning a custom among its drivers to cross tracks without proper precaution, become liable; accordingly the trial court dismissed the complaints as to The Manila Railroad Co. and awarded damages against Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. in varying amounts to the three plaintiffs. The taxicab company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court record on appeal; the parties introduced evidence and authorities below and before this Court concerning visibility at the crossing, signals given by the train, the existence of a custom among automobile drivers, and the duties of ma...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the contributory negligence of the automobile driver imputable to the passengers who hired the vehicle so as to bar their recovery?
- Was the Manila Railroad Company negligent or otherwise liable for the collision?
- Is the Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co. liable for the chauffeur’s negligence despite having furnished a competent driver?
- Must the trial court’s awards for dama...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)