0 calificaciones0% encontró este documento útil (0 votos)
62 vistas1 página
Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. While alighting from a moving train may be common practice, MRC was negligent by piling sacks of watermelons without adequate warning or lighting. As a young employee with a pass, Cangco did not act unreasonably by exiting before the train fully stopped. MRC is liable under Article 2180 for the negligence of its employees that caused Cangco's injuries, rather than merely for breach of contract as a carrier.
Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. While alighting from a moving train may be common practice, MRC was negligent by piling sacks of watermelons without adequate warning or lighting. As a young employee with a pass, Cangco did not act unreasonably by exiting before the train fully stopped. MRC is liable under Article 2180 for the negligence of its employees that caused Cangco's injuries, rather than merely for breach of contract as a carrier.
Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages. While alighting from a moving train may be common practice, MRC was negligent by piling sacks of watermelons without adequate warning or lighting. As a young employee with a pass, Cangco did not act unreasonably by exiting before the train fully stopped. MRC is liable under Article 2180 for the negligence of its employees that caused Cangco's injuries, rather than merely for breach of contract as a carrier.
FACTS: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a
common practice and a lot of people are doing so every day On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor and agility of Railroad Co (MRC). He was an employee of the latter and he young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. When off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have he was nearing his destination at about 7pm, he arose from his been in an aged or feeble person. He was also ignorant of the seat even though the train was not at full stop. When he was fact that sacks of watermelons were there as there were no about to alight from the train (which was still slightly moving) appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit. he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons which he The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him of employers under Article 2180 and their liability for breach of to lose his balance at the door and he fell and his arm was contract [of carriage]: crushed by the train and he suffered other serious injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down.
It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in
piling the sacks of watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for