Rakes v Atlantic (Torts)

RAKES v ATLANTIC [G.R. No. 1719. January 23, 1907.] M. H., RAKES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND
PACIFIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
he plaintiff, one of a gang of eight negro laborers in the employment of the defendant, was at work transporting iron rails
from a barge in the harbor to the company's yard near the malecon in Manila. Plaintiff claims that but one hand car was
used in this work. The defendant has proved that there were two immediately following one another, upon which were
piled lengthwise seven rails, each weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails lay upon two crosspieces or sills
secured to the cars, but without side pieces or guards to prevent them from slipping off. According to the testimony of the
plaintiff, the men were either in the rear of the car or at its sides. According to that defendant, some of them were also in
front, hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the track sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted
or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

ISSUE:
Whether the company is liable

RULING:
Yes. The negligence of the plaintiff, contributing to the accident, to what extent it existed in fact and what legal effect is to
be given it. In two particulars is he charged with carelessness:
First. That having noticed the depression in the track he continued his work; and
Second.That he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards, either before or behind it.
The Court ruled that His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing the slight depression of the rail was not of
so gross a nature as to constitute negligence, barring his recovery under the severe American rule. While the plaintiff and
his witnesses swear that not only were they not forbidden to proceed in this way, but were expressly directed by the
foreman to do so, both the officers of the company and three of the workmen testify that there was a general prohibition
frequently made known to all the gang against walking by the side of the car, and the foreman swears that he repeated the
prohibition before the starting of this particular load. On this contradiction of proof we think that the preponderance is in
favor of the defendant's contention to the extent of the general order being made known to the workmen. If so, the
disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate,
although not as its primary cause.

Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which there could have been
no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it, but contributing under review was the
displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. this produced the event giving occasion for damages — that is,
the sinking of the track and the sliding of the iron rails.

1. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. — In order to enforce the liability of an employer for injuries to his employee, it is not
necessary that a criminal action be first prosecuted against the employer or his representative primarily chargeable with
the accident. No criminal proceeding having been taken, the civil action may proceed to judgment.

2. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO WORKMEN. — The responsibility of an employer to his employee of a fellow-servant of

the employee injured, is not adopted in Philippine jurisprudence.

3. FELLOW-SERVANT RULE. — Sua cuique culpa nocet. The doctrine known as the "Fellow-servant rule," exonerating the
employer where the injury was incurred through the negligence of a fellow-servant of the employee injured, is not
adopted in Philippine jurisprudence.