Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co. 38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher. Facts

Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co.
part to have not waited the train to stop before he

38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher. alighted. In that way, he should’ve seen the pile of
Facts: watermelons piled in the platform.
1. Jose Cangco is a clerk working in Manila Railroad Co.  However, in the case at bar, there were circumstances
2. As an employee, he was given a pass that entitles him to prove that MRR did not exercise diligence. FIRST,
to ride the company’s train free of charge. “the place, as we have already stated, was dark, or
3. On the night of Jan. 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon
train on his way home. When it reached the San the part of the defendant in the performance of a
Mateo station (where he lives) he stood up and duty owing by it to the plaintif; for if it were by any
positioned himself near the exit. A person gets of possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks
before him. When he was about to come down, he in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of
was suppose to step on a certain platform. However, them adequately so that their presence would be
that day, there were watermelons piled in that revealed.”
platform and he stepped on them. (The watermelons  SECOND, “it may be noted that the place was
are there because it was harvest season. It was ready perfectly familiar to the plaintif as it was his daily
for shipment to the market.) custom to get on and of the train at this station. There
4. Since the place was lighted dimly, he couldn’t could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with
properly see if the watermelons were there or not. regard either to the length of the step which he was
Also, when he got of, the train was still moving. required to take or the character of the platform
5. As a consequence of his fall, he was drawn to the where he was alighting.”
platform and was crushed by a moving car.  As a conclusion, the conduct of the plaintif in
6. He was taken to a hospital where is arms were undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly
amputated. Afterwards, he was taken to another under way was not characterized by imprudence and
hospital where his shoulders were also amputated. All that therefore he was not guilty of contributory
in all, the expenses had a total of Php 790. 25. negligence.
7. He filed a case against MRR in CFI Manila to recover  With this, MRR should pay the damages. They are
damages. However, CFI ruled in favor of MRR because ordered to pay Php 3, 290. 25 to Cangco.
there was CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE on the part
of Cangco. CFI ruled that while MRR was negligent by DISSENTING, Malcolm and Johnson:
placing the watermelons on the platform and the
train failing to bring him safely, Cangco failed to  With one sentence in the majority decision, we are of
exercise due caution in alighting from the train. full accord, namely, "It may be admitted that had
Issue: plaintif waited until the train had come to a full stop
 Is Cangco barred from recovering damages against before alighting, the particular injury sufered by him
MRR because of his own CONTRIBUTORY could not have occurred." With the general rule
NEGLIGENCE? relative to a passenger's contributory negligence, we
are likewise in full accord, namely, "An attempt to
Ruling: alight from a moving train is negligence per se."
 NO, he is not barred from recovering damages. (SC Adding these two points together, should be absolved
reversed the decision of the CFI) from the complaint, and judgment affirmed.
 SC said that the PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of MRR
should be examined separately from the
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE of Cangco.
 On the one hand, there is the contract of carriage on
the part of MRR to bring Cangco safely to his
destination. There is the presumption of responsibility
on the part of MRR to make sure that in order to bring
Cangco and other passengers safely to their
destination, MRR should have exercised the proper
discretion in selecting and directing its employees and
workers. MRR is deemed negligent if is proven that
they failed in their discretion in selecting and directing
its employees.
o To prove that MRR exercised DILIGENCE in
this area would exonerate MRR from
liability.
 On the other hand, Cangco alighted from the train
when the train was still moving. It is negligence on his

Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co. 38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher. Facts

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co. 38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher. Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co. 38 Phil 768, October 1918, J. Fisher. Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cangco, Jose vs. Manila Railroad Co.

part to have not waited the train to stop before he

You might also like