Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3422)
Facts
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., owner of an ice-plant factory, had two water tanks nine feet deep installed on its premises for engine cooling. While the factory compound was surrounded by a fence, the tanks themselves were uncovered and unfenced; their rims stood about one foot above ground level. The compound gate was kept wide open and there was no guard; motor vehicles and customers routinely passed through, and any person could freely enter. On April 16, 1943, Mario, a boy of nearly six years, entered the premises with other boys to bathe in one of the tanks. He sank and later was recovered dead, cause of death listed as asphyxia secondary to drowning.
Procedural history
The Court of First Instance of Laguna and the Court of Appeals awarded plaintiffs damages of P2,000 against Hidalgo Enterprises, holding that the petitioner maintained an attractive nuisance and failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from being injured. Hidalgo Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
Issue presented
Whether Hidalgo Enterprises is civilly liable to the deceased child’s parents under the attractive nuisance doctrine for failure to prevent access to the water tanks; ancillary question whether parental contributory negligence barred recovery.
Legal principles applied
The courts below applied the attractive nuisance doctrine: an owner who maintains on his premises a dangerous instrumentality likely to attract children and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from resorting to it is liable to a child of tender years injured thereby, even if the child is, technically, a trespasser. The doctrine was recognized in this jurisdiction in Taylor v. Manila Electric (16 Phil., 8) and is discussed in American authorities, including Corpus Juris Secundum.
Majority analysis and holding
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and absolved Hidalgo Enterprises from liability. The majority concluded that a body of water—whether natural or artificial—generally does not constitute an attractive nuisance absent some unusual condition or artificial feature beyond the mere presence of water and its location. The Court relied on a broad array of American decisions (as summarized in C. J. S.) holding that ponds, reservoirs, pools, streams, canals, ditches and similar bodies of water are ordinarily not classified as attractive nuisances. The Court cited an Indiana appellate explanation that owners who duplicate natural bodies of water by creating artificial pools do not, by that act alone, add new danger sufficient to impose liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine, because children are commonly instructed early about the inherent danger of water and are therefore presumed to know it. Because the tanks were not classified as an attractive nuisance, the question whether Hidalgo Enterprises took reasonable precautions became immaterial; likewise, the Court did not need to address the petitioners’ contention concerning alleged contributory negligence of the parents. The Court also noted, in fairness to the Court of Appeals, that the cited volume of Corpus Juris Secundum was published in 1950 while the Court of Appeals’ decision was promulgated in 1949. Final disposition: the appealed decision was reversed and Hidalgo Enterprises absolved from liability; no costs.
Dissenting opi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3422)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 91 Phil. 488; G.R. No. L-3422; decision dated June 13, 1952.
- Appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals had required Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. to pay Guillermo Balandan and his wife damages in the sum of P2,000 for the death of their son Mario.
- Both the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance of Laguna had taken the view that the petitioner maintained an attractive nuisance and had neglected necessary precautions to prevent accidents.
Facts
- Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of an ice-plant factory in the City of San Pablo, Laguna.
- On the factory premises were installed two tanks full of water, nine feet deep, used for cooling the engine.
- The factory compound was surrounded by a fence, but the two tanks themselves were not provided with any kind of fence or top covers.
- The edges of the tanks were barely a foot high from the surface of the ground.
- The wide gate entrance to the compound was continually open; motor vehicles hauling ice and persons buying ice passed through, and anyone could easily enter the factory premises as he pleased.
- There was no guard assigned to the gate.
- At about noon of April 16, 1943, plaintiffs’ son, Mario Balandan, a boy barely six years old, while playing with and in the company of other boys of his age, entered the factory premises through the gate to take a bath in one of the tanks.
- While bathing, Mario sank to the bottom of the tank and was later fished out already a cadaver; cause of death stated as "asphyxia secondary to drowning."
Issues Presented
- Whether the water tanks on petitioner’s premises constitute an attractive nuisance such that the owner is liable for the death of a child who is injured or drowned therein.
- Whether the petitioner failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from resorting to or playing in the tanks.
- Whether the parents’ alleged contributory negligence (having left for Manila that day leaving their son under no responsible individual) would preclude recovery.
Legal Doctrine Articulated (Attractive Nuisance)
- The Court expounded the attractive nuisance doctrine of American origin, recognized in this jurisdiction in Taylor v. Manila Electric, 16 Phil. 8.
- The doctrine stated: one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser.
- Principal rationale: a condition or appliance, though its danger is apparent to adults, may be so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on, or use it; this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children (citing 65 C. J. S., p. 458).
Authorities and Secondary Sources Relied Upon
- The Court cited American authorities collected in 65 Corpus Juris Secundum (C. J. S.), including the summarized rule on attractive nuisance (65 C. J. S., p. 455).
- The Court noted the published view in 65 C. J. S. (p. 476 et seq.) that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere