Title
Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co.
Case
G.R. No. 10073
Decision Date
Dec 24, 1915
Passengers injured in a 1913 train-automobile collision; court held taxi company liable for driver’s gross negligence, exonerated railroad company, and adjusted damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 10073)

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs hired an automobile from Bachrach Garage for a trip. On their return, while crossing railroad tracks, the automobile was struck by a train. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs against the taxicab company, holding it liable for damages while dismissing the claims against the railroad company. The court found the automobile driver grossly negligent for failing to observe necessary precautions at the crossing.

Negligence and Liability

The trial court established that the automobile's driver did not slow down or take adequate precautions to ascertain the approach of a train despite visibility conditions. The finding of gross negligence led to liability for the taxicab company, which had failed to properly train its drivers on safety measures at railroad crossings. The appellate court affirmed that mere customary practices, even dangerous ones, do not absolve the company of liability.

Contributory Negligence

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were partly at fault for not instructing the driver to be cautious. However, the court ruled that hiring a taxi does not impose negligence on the passenger unless they exercise control over the driver’s conduct. The general rule favors the passenger unless circumstantial control exists.

Railroad Company Negligence

The court found no negligence on the part of The Manila Railroad Company. The evidence demonstrated that train signals were properly issued before approaching the crossing, indicating that the railroad fulfilled its legal obligations of warning.

Custom and Regulation

The appellant contended that a custom among drivers to disregard safety at crossings should not be deemed negligent. The court disagreed, asserting that dangerous practices cannot form a legitimate custom. The taxicab company's prior approval and knowledge of its drivers’ habits ultimately subjected it to liability.

Evaluation of Damages

The court scrutinized claims for damages submitted by the plaintiffs. It concluded that while some medical expenditures and loss of income were verifiable, other claims lacked sufficient documentation. Therefore, the awarded damages to each plaintiff were amended based on their actual, demonstrable losses.

Final Rulings on Damages

  1. Butaro Yamada: Entitled to recover actual hospital and doctor bills along with losses from time off work, totaling P299.
  2. Takutaru Uyehara: Awarded P950 for lost wages and medical costs based on established expe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.