Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

- That night, apparently not only the

rails were above-ground, but that


Wright v. Manila Electric the ties upon which the rails rested
projected from one-third to one-
half of their depth out of the
E. M. WRIGHT, plaintiff-appellant, ground, thus making the tops of the
rails some 5 or 6 inches or more
vs.
above the level of the street. (I
MANILA ELECTRIC R.R. & LIGHT CO., defendant- promise I’ll research on how the
appellant. hell this is supposed to look like)

- Defendant: admitted its negligence


in failing the maintenance of the
Ponencia: J. Moreland
rails, but pointed out that plaintiff
Petition to recover damages for injuries was drunk that night.

TC ruling: Factoring in the above, the TC held


Setting: Aug 8, 1909, Caloocan city. that both parties were negligent, but the
defendant’s negligence was greater than the
plaintiff’s, and so apportioned damages.
Plaintiff: homeowner. His residence fronts the Plaintiff was awarded a judgment of P1,000.
street on which runs the railway track operated Both parties appealed.
by defendant corporation, so he has to cross
Main issues:
them everytime he goes home.
Defendant: Assuming the TC was correct and
Defendant: Electric railway operator,
both parties were guilty of negligence, did the
corporation in charge of a railway going through
plaintiff’s contribute to the principal occurrence
Manila and its suburbs, including plaintiff’s
or only to his own injury? If the former, then he
neighbourhood.
can’t recover. If the latter, then the TC’s
Facts: judgment was right.

1. Aug 8, 1909 Counsel: The principal occurrence was the


- Plaintiff was in a calesa driving plaintiff’s fall from the calesa. His intoxication
home. In crossing the tracks to contributed to this bc he had been crossing and
enter his premises the horse going home safely hundreds of times before.
stumbled, leaped forward, and fell,
Plaintiff: The main question at issue is whether
causing the vehicle with the rails,
or not the plaintiff was negligent, and, if so, to
resulting in a sudden stop, threw
what extent. If the negligence of the plaintiff
plaintiff from the vehicle and
was the primary cause of the accident then, of
caused the injuries complained of.
course, he cannot recover; if his negligence had
nothing to do with the accident but contributed find facts in the opinion of the court
to his injury, then the court was right in below which justify a larger verdict
apportioning the damages, but if there was no than the one found.”
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, then he
should be awarded damages adequates to the
injury sustained.

Basically, ito gusto nila: Defendant says it’s not


liable bc kasalanan naman ni Plaintiff na
naglasing siya. Si plaintiff says that the damages
awarded were insufficient considering the
evidence of what he went through.

SC’s Holding:

- Sided with plaintiff. TC hadn’t


uncovered enough to prove
Plaintiff’s intoxication really did
contribute to the situation. They
just based their judgment on Doctor
Kneedler’s testimony (the physician
who attended to the plaintiff one
hour after the accident) that he was
drunk, and went from there.

- Plaintiff’s intoxication doesn’t


warrant the conclusion that he was
negligent. The fact is, the condition
the defendants left their rails in
would’ve caused an accident no
matter how sober plaintiff had
been. There’s no proof that plaintiff
was even negligent at all, and to say
so would be heading off into
speculation.

- “It having been found that the


plaintiff was not negligent, it is
unnecessary to discuss the question
presented by the appellant
company with reference to the
applicability of the case of Rakes vs.
A. G. & P. Co., above; and we do not