Case Summary (G.R. No. 6666)
Factual Background
At the time of the accident a two-track street-car line ran along Calle Concepcion with an east-bound track and a west-bound track. The plaintiff sued to recover for injury to his horse and calesa resulting from a collision between the calesa and an east-bound street car that had turned into Concepcion from Bagumbayan and was proceeding toward Marcelino. The calesa was being driven west on the left side of Concepcion, between the west-bound track and the curb, and was endeavoring to pass two bull carts when the collision occurred. For a collision to occur with a car on the east-bound track it was necessary for the horse and calesa to cross both the roadway reserved for vehicles and the west-bound track.
Plaintiff's Complaint and Trial Outcome
The plaintiff brought an action for damages for injury to the horse and calesa. After trial the Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the merits and without costs. The plaintiff appealed from that judgment.
Evidence Presented for the Plaintiff
The plaintiff relied principally on three witnesses: the cochero Mariano Alejo who was driving the calesa, and the drivers of the two bull carts, Cipriano Nocum and Francisco David. Alejo testified that while attempting to pass the second cart the horse became frightened by a white tarpaulin, reared and shied, went backwards and forwards, and that he shouted to the motorman to stop but the car did not stop; he maintained that the car struck the calesa on the right-hand side. Nocum and David described the horse as rearing and backing, asserted that the calesa was in motion for several minutes in a disturbed state before the collision, and stated that portions of the right side of the calesa were struck by the front corner or footboard of the car. Their accounts, however, contained inconsistencies concerning the direction and extent of the horse’s movements and the point and manner of impact.
Evidence Presented for the Defense
The defendant called as witnesses the calesa occupant Leander W. Strawn, Dr. H. E. Schiffbauer, and the motorman Modesto Medina. Strawn testified that he had been dozing and was awakened when the horse reared as the calesa was attempting to pass the bull cart and that, at the instant of rearing, the horse struck the side of the street car roughly two or three seats down; he did not hear any shout by the cochero to the motorman. Dr. Schiffbauer, who stood on the north side of Concepcion opposite the Y. M. C. A., described seeing the calesa pass the front of the car and then, a few seconds later, a crash; he observed that the calesa was proceeding peaceably until the attempt to pass the cart and estimated the car’s speed at about five points, or eight to ten miles an hour. Motorman Medina testified that he rang his bell upon entering Concepcion, proceeded at the regulated speed of five points after 8:30 p.m., and that, when the calesa was about to come in line with the cart the horse turned to the right and collided with the car; he estimated slightly more than two seconds from the horse’s turn until impact. Additional witnesses for the defense and returning witnesses reported that the damage to the car appeared on its side several feet from the front corner and that several grab handles were broken off beginning at the second handle.
Conflicts and Credibility Findings
The testimony for the plaintiff was internally inconsistent and conflicted with the testimony of disinterested witnesses and with the physical condition of the street car after the accident. The cochero’s account and those of the cart drivers suggested prolonged and repeated dangerous movement of the horse across the track for several minutes, yet Strawn and Dr. Schiffbauer each described events as occurring almost instantly at the moment the cochero attempted to pass the cart. The motorman’s testimony and the observable damage to the car corroborated the version that the calesa or horse struck the side of the car after the front of the car had passed the calesa, with damage concentrated several feet from the car’s front corner rather than at the end or corner.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The principal issue was whether the motorman and the company were negligent in failing to stop the street car prior to the collision, such negligence having been alleged to arise from the motorman’s purported knowledge, for an extended distance, of an unmanageable horse running across the track and his failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision. Subsidiary issues concerned causation and the credibility of competing witness accounts.
Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the clear weight of the evidence refuted the plaintiff’s theory of prolonged danger and actionable negligence by the motorman. The testimony of Strawn, Dr. Schiffbauer, and the motorman established that the calesa was proceeding quietly until the cochero attempted to pass the garbage cart, at which instant the horse was frightened by the tarpaulin, reared and dashed sideways across the west-bound track into the side of the east-bound car. Those witnesses indicated that the car had nearly passed the calesa before the sudden movement and that only a very short interval elapsed between the horse’s rearing and the collision. The physical condition of the street car — damage on the side several feet from the front and broken grab handles beginning at the second handle while the front corner remained intact — corroborated the defense witnesses’ account and contradicted the plaintiff’s contention that the car ran into the
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 6666)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- George E. Brown, Plaintiff and Appellant sued to recover damages for injury to his horse and calesa following a collision with a street car.
- The Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, Defendant and Appellee answered and defended the action.
- The action was tried in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, the Hon. A. S. Crossfield presiding, which dismissed the complaint on the merits without costs.
- The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the Court, which rendered the decision now under review.
Key Factual Allegations
- The collision occurred at about eleven o'clock at night on Calle Concepcion near the Y. M. C. A. building as an east-bound street car turned into Concepcion from Bagumbayan.
- The calesa and horse were traveling west along the left (south) side of Concepcion between the west-bound track and the curb and were attempting to pass two bull carts when the accident occurred.
- The plaintiff alleged that the street car struck the calesa substantially head-on and that the motorman had been aware of an unmanageable horse for a long distance and therefore was negligent in failing to stop.
Witness Testimony
- The cochero Mariano Alejo testified that the horse shied at a white tarpaulin, reared, went backwards and forwards for an extended period, and that he shouted to the motorman to stop but the motorman did not.
- The two drivers of the bull carts gave confused and conflicting testimony as to the horse's movements, with one asserting the horse crossed the track multiple times and another saying the horse remained generally on the left side.
- Leander W. Strawn, the occupant of the calesa, testified for the defense that he had been half asleep, was awakened by the horse rearing, and that when the horse reared it struck the car about two or three seats down the side, after which the calesa was thrown into the car.
- H. E. Schiffbauer, a disinterested eyewitness on the north side of Concepcion, testified that the calesa passed the front of the street car and, a few seconds later, a crash occurred, and that prior to the attempt to pass the cart the horse was under perfect control.
- Motorman Modesto Medina testified that he rang the bell upon turning into Concepcion, was proceeding at the prescribed speed of fiv