Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 346 views

    10 - Martinez v. Van Buskirk

    Uploaded by

    gem bae
    Martinez was injured when the delivery wagon belonging to William Van Buskirk collided with the carromata that Martinez was riding in. Van Buskirk claimed that his cochero (driver) was reliable but the horses were frightened by another vehicle, causing them to throw the cochero from the wagon and run away, resulting in the collision. The court ruled that Van Buskirk was not liable for the negligence of his cochero, as it was common practice and custom for merchants to leave horses unattended in this manner, and the accident was the result of ordinary circumstances rather than negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 - Martinez v. Van Buskirk

    Uploaded by

    gem bae
    346 views1 page
    Martinez was injured when the delivery wagon belonging to William Van Buskirk collided with the carromata that Martinez was riding in. Van Buskirk claimed that his cochero (driver) was reliable but the horses were frightened by another vehicle, causing them to throw the cochero from the wagon and run away, resulting in the collision. The court ruled that Van Buskirk was not liable for the negligence of his cochero, as it was common practice and custom for merchants to leave horses unattended in this manner, and the accident was the result of ordinary circumstances rather than negligence.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Martinez was injured when the delivery wagon belonging to William Van Buskirk collided with the carromata that Martinez was riding in. Van Buskirk claimed that his cochero (driver) was reliable but the horses were frightened by another vehicle, causing them to throw the cochero from the wagon and run away, resulting in the collision. The court ruled that Van Buskirk was not liable for the negligence of his cochero, as it was common practice and custom for merchants to leave horses unattended in this manner, and the accident was the result of ordinary circumstances rather than negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    346 views1 page

    10 - Martinez v. Van Buskirk

    Uploaded by

    gem bae
    Martinez was injured when the delivery wagon belonging to William Van Buskirk collided with the carromata that Martinez was riding in. Van Buskirk claimed that his cochero (driver) was reliable but the horses were frightened by another vehicle, causing them to throw the cochero from the wagon and run away, resulting in the collision. The court ruled that Van Buskirk was not liable for the negligence of his cochero, as it was common practice and custom for merchants to leave horses unattended in this manner, and the accident was the result of ordinary circumstances rather than negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MARTINEZ vs.

    WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK

    G.R. No. L-5691 December 27, 1910

    FACTS:

    Martinez who was riding a carromata in Ermita along the left side of the street was hit by a delivery wagon
    belonging to the defendant on September 11, 1908. It was found out that the delivery wagon belonging
    to the defenfant, to which a pair of horses attached to it came along the street in the opposite direction
    at a great speed and ran into the carromata, wounding Martinez severely. However, the defendant
    presented evidence which will cater to his claim that the cochero was a good servant, reliable, and a safe
    cochero. He stated that he was delivering stuffs so he had to tie the driving lines of the horses to the front
    end of the delivery wagon and went inside the wagon to already unload the stuffs when suddenly another
    vehicle drove by whose driver cracked a whip and made some noises. This act frightened the said horses
    of the cochero and made it ran away, it threw the cochero from the inside of the wagon out through the
    rear upon the ground and was unable to stop the horses. That was the time the horses collided with the
    carromata.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the defendant is liable for the negligence of his cochero.

    RULING:

    No. The defendant is not liable for the negligence of his cochero. It is provided under Article 12 of the Civil
    Code “A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidences” in which it is proven to the
    court that a custom which is to leave the horses in the manner in which they were left at the time of the
    accident does exist. In the case at bar, it has been a custom or a matter of common knowledge and a
    universal practice of merchants to leave horses as to how the cochero left his at the time of the accident.
    The very reason why they have been permitted by the society is because this custom was beneficial rather
    than prejudicial. It also proves that the defendant is not liable of the accusation as this is the custom in all
    cities and the public finds itself unprejudiced by such practice has acquiesced for years. Hence, the court
    ruled in favor of the defendant because the occurrence that transpired therein was an accident resulted
    from ordinary acts of life.

    You might also like