Jose Dingcong vs Halim Kanaan

FACTS: Jose Dingcong was the owner of a hotel in Iloilo. In 1933, a certain Francisco
Echevarria rented a room in the upper floor of the hotel. The room he rented was
immediately above the store occupied by the Kanaan brothers who are also tenants of the
hotel. One night, Echevarria carelessly left his faucet open thereby flooding his room and
it caused water to drip from his room to the store below. Because of this, the articles being
sold by Kanaan were damaged. Apparently also, the water pipes supposed to drain the
water from Echevarrias room was defective hence the flooding and the dripping.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dingcong is liable to pay for the damages caused by Echevarria.

HELD: Yes. Dingcong as proprietor is liable for the negligent act of the guest of his hotel
(Echevarria). It was not shown that Dingcong exercised the diligence of a good father in
preventing the damage caused. The pipe should have been repaired prior and Echevarria
should have been provided with a container to catch the drip. Therefore, Dingcong is liable
to pay for damages by reason of his negligence.

J.H. Chapman vs James Underwood

FACTS: The facts of the case took place in the 1910s. J.H. Chapman visited a friend in
Santa Ana and while he was about to ride a vehicle to take him home he was struck by a
car owned by James Underwood and driven by his chauffeur. Chapman was on the correct
lane. Underwood was riding in the car when the incident happened. Apparently, the
chauffeur, coming from the opposite direction and was driving straight ahead and when
the automobile about to be boarded by Chapman was in front of him, he [the chauffeur]
instead of swerving left he suddenly swerved right to the direction of Chapman thereby
hitting and running over him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Underwood is liable for the negligent act of his chauffeur.

HELD: No. The general rule is that an owner who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle,
and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent
acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the
driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if
the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable
opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal
law, the owner of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was
committed, is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of
must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner,
by his acquiescence, makes his drivers act his own. In the case at bar, it was not shown
that there was a sufficient period for Underwood to dissuade the chauffeur from the
negligent act as the swerving of the vehicle by the chauffeur was sudden.

Yamada vs Manila Railroad & Bachrach Garage

FACTS: In January 1913, Yamada et al hired a taxi owned and operated by Bachrach
Garage so that they may travel to Cavite Viejo. The trip was safe going to said place but
when they were going back from said place the taxi was hit by a train owned by Manila
Railroad. Yamada et al sued the driver, Bachrach, and Manila Railroad. They claimed that
the driver was negligent as he did not slow down while he was approaching the railroad
tracks. The driver said there was no way for him to see the train coming because of the
tall growing bushes and trees. Bachrach said that it is not liable as an employer because
prior to hiring the driver, the driver has been of good record for 5 years and had had no
traffic infractions prior to the collision; and that the negligence of the driver is also
imputable to Yamada et al they being the ones in control of the vehicle; that Yamada et
al should have controlled the driver and instructed him to slow down. Manila Railroad said
that it is not liable as well because its engineers provided proper warning signals on their
approach and that there were no tall trees or bushes at the time of the accident.

Yamadas counsel presented the president of Bachrach who alleged that all their drivers
habitually drove their taxis over railroad crossings without slowing down or investigating
whether a train is coming such practice being allowed and tolerated by Bachrach.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bachrach Garage Manila railroad should be liable.

HELD: It was established that the driver was negligent. A prudent driver should have
slowed down approaching a railroad crossing regardless if he could see a train or not
regardless of the presence of tall bushes.

Manila Railroad and its employees are not negligent as showed by the evidence which were
uncontroverted hence no liability can be had against them.

Bachrach Garage however is liable for damages as an employer. Although they did
establish that they have done their diligence in properly selecting their driver and in
providing said driver with a good car, they have failed to provide proper supervision and
control over their employee. Bachrach Garage did not perform its full duty when it
furnished a safe and proper car and a driver with a long and satisfactory record. It failed
to comply with one of the essential requirements of the law of negligence in this
jurisdiction, that of supervision and instruction, including the promulgation of proper rules
and regulations and the formulation and publication of proper instructions for their
guidance in cases where such rules and regulations and instructions are necessary.

Bachrachs contention that Yamada et al were also negligent because they failed to
properly instruct the driver is untenable. Those on a cab do not become responsible for
the negligence of the driver if they exercise no control over him further than to indicate
the route they wish to travel or the places to which they wish to go. Note that in order to
impute negligence to a passenger, at least one of these two things must exist:

1. That the driver is actually the passengers agent in all respect

2. The passengers have cooperated in producing the injury complained of.