Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

14 October 1918 Fisher Facts: - Petitioner was working as a clerk for the respondent which provided him with a pass so he can ride the respondent's trains free of charge to and from work. - On the night of the incident, as the train was slowing down at the San Mateo station, the petitioner observed a person alight. When the train had proceeded a little farther, Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of his feet came in contact with a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. Cangco's arm had to be amputated as a result of the incident. - He instituted the proceedings to recover damages founding his action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of Manila Railroad in placing the sacks on the platform and leaving them as to be danger to the security of passengers alighting from the trains. The CFI ruled that Cangco failed to use due caution in alighting from the train and was therefore precluded from recovering, hence this petition. Issues: - Is the Manila Railroad Co. liable for damages? - Is Cangco guilty of contributory negligence, thus barring him from recovering damages? Ruling: Decision of lower court reversed. Judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of P3290.25. Reasoning: On first issue - The foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage. The obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises from the breach of that contract by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance. Its liability is direct and immediate. (contrast this with extra-contractual liability then provided for in Art. 1903 of the Civil Code) - In a suit for breach of contract, it is no defense for the defendant to show proof of negligent acts of its agents or servants. If this were the case, the anomalous situation would arise where a defendant would practically be immune from liability for damages arising from the negligent acts of its agents. - The contract of defendant to transport plaintiff carried with it, by implication, the duty to carry him in safety and to provide safe means of entering and leaving its trains (civil code, then article 1258). That duty, being contractual, was direct and immediate, and its non-performance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants. On second issue - It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. The court is of the opinion that this is at variance with the experience of every-day life. In this instance, that the train was barely moving when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within six meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of persons alight from trains under these conditions every day, and sustain no injury where the company has kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe alighting place. - As the defendant was bound by its duty as a public carrier to afford to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the contrary, that the platform was clear. The negligence is further shown by the failure of the respondent to provide for adequate lighting to the platform. - In determining the question of contributory negligence, the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. The plaintiff

was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person.