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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    de Guia vs. Manila Electric

    Uploaded by

    Fairyssa Bianca Sagot
    1. The plaintiff was injured when the train he was riding on derailed and hit a concrete post. He sued the defendant railroad company. 2. The court found the defendant liable, as the motorman should have stopped the train sooner upon realizing it had derailed. The relationship between the parties was contractual, as the plaintiff was a paying passenger. 3. The court awarded some damages to the plaintiff but denied others. It found some damage claims, like lost earnings and future incapacity, were too speculative. It also denied large claims for medical expenses, finding some treatments were not reasonably necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    de Guia vs. Manila Electric

    Uploaded by

    Fairyssa Bianca Sagot
    29 views3 pages
    1. The plaintiff was injured when the train he was riding on derailed and hit a concrete post. He sued the defendant railroad company. 2. The court found the defendant liable, as the motorman should have stopped the train sooner upon realizing it had derailed. The relationship between the parties was contractual, as the plaintiff was a paying passenger. 3. The court awarded some damages to the plaintiff but denied others. It found some damage claims, like lost earnings and future incapacity, were too speculative. It also denied large claims for medical expenses, finding some treatments were not reasonably necessary.

    Original Title

    24. De Guia vs. Manila Electric

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The plaintiff was injured when the train he was riding on derailed and hit a concrete post. He sued the defendant railroad company. 2. The court found the defendant liable, as the motorman should have stopped the train sooner upon realizing it had derailed. The relationship between the parties was contractual, as the plaintiff was a paying passenger. 3. The court awarded some damages to the plaintiff but denied others. It found some damage claims, like lost earnings and future incapacity, were too speculative. It also denied large claims for medical expenses, finding some treatments were not reasonably necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    29 views3 pages

    de Guia vs. Manila Electric

    Uploaded by

    Fairyssa Bianca Sagot
    1. The plaintiff was injured when the train he was riding on derailed and hit a concrete post. He sued the defendant railroad company. 2. The court found the defendant liable, as the motorman should have stopped the train sooner upon realizing it had derailed. The relationship between the parties was contractual, as the plaintiff was a paying passenger. 3. The court awarded some damages to the plaintiff but denied others. It found some damage claims, like lost earnings and future incapacity, were too speculative. It also denied large claims for medical expenses, finding some treatments were not reasonably necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    DE GUIA V.

    MANILA ELECTRIC, RAILROAD & LIGHT CO 24

    APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.


    FACTS
    The plaintiff is a physician residing in Caloocan City.-Sept 4, 1915, at about 8pm, the defendant boarded a car.
    At about 30 meters from the starting point the car entered a switch, the plaintiff remaining on the back platform
    holding the handle of the right-hand door. Upon coming out of the switch, the small wheels of the rear truck left
    the track ran for a short distance and hit a concrete post. the post was shattered: at the time the car struck
    against the concrete post, the plaintiff was allegedly standing on the rear platform, grasping the handle of the
    right-hand door. The shock of the impact threw him forward, and the left part of his chest struck against the
    door causing him to fall. In the falling, the plaintiff alleged that his head struck one of the seats and he became
    unconscious.-the plaintiff was taken to his home which was a short distance away from the site of the incident.
    A physician of the defendant company visited the plaintiff and noted that the plaintiff was walking about and
    apparently suffering somewhat from bruises on his chest. The plaintiff said nothing about his head being
    injured and refused to go to a hospital.
    -The plaintiff consulted other physicians about his condition, and all these physicians testified for the plaintiff in
    the trial court.
    -the plaintiff was awarded with P6,100, with interest and costs, as damages incurred by him inconsequence of
    physical injuries sustained. The plaintiff and the defendant company appealed.
    ISSUES
    1. WON the defendant has disproved the existence of negligence
    2. What is the nature of the relation between the parties?
    3. WON the defendant is liable for the damages
    4. If liable for damages, WON the defendant could avail of the last paragraph of Art 1903 on culpa aquiliana
    (Art 2180)
    5. What is the extent of the defendant’s liability?
    5.1 Did the trial judge err in the awarding of the damages for loss of professional earnings(P900)
    5.2 Did the trial judge err in the awarding of the damages for inability to accept a position as a district health
    officer?
    5.3 Did the trial judge err in not awarding damages for the plaintiff’s supposed incapacitation for future
    professional practice (P30,000)?
    5.4 Is the plaintiff reasonable in demandingP10,000 for the cost of medical treatment and other expenses
    incident to his cure?
    6. WON the trial judge erred in treating written statements of the physicians who testified as primary evidence?
    HELD1. NO, the existence of negligence in the operation of the car must be sustained, as not being clearly
    contrary to the evidence.
    Ratio
    An experienced and attentive motorman should have discovered that something was wrong and would have
    stopped before he had driven the car over the entire distance from the point where the wheels left the track to
    the place where the post was struck.
    Reasoning
    The motorman alleged that he reduced his speed to the point that the car barely entered the switch under its
    own momentum, and this operation was repeated as he passed out. Upon getting again on the straight track
    he put the control successively at points one, two, three and lastly at point four. At the moment when the
    control was placed at point four he perceived that the rear wheels were derailed and applied the brake; but at
    the same instant the car struck the post, some 40 meters distant from the exit of the switch. However,
    testimonial evidence alleged that the rate of a car propelled by electricity with the control at point "four" should
    be about five or 6 miles per hour (around 8 kph) and other evidence showed that the car was behind schedule
    time and that it was being driven, after leaving the switch, at a higher rate than would ordinarily be indicated by
    the control at point four. The car was practically empty (so it’s possible that it could run faster?). The court
    granted that there is negligence as shown by the distance which the car was allowed to run with the front
    wheels of the rear truck derailed, aside from the fact that the car was running in an excessive speed.
    2. The relation between the parties was of a contractual nature.
    Ratio
    The company was bound to convey and deliver the plaintiff safely and securely with reference to the degree of
    care which, under the circumstances, is required by law and custom applicable to the case.
    Reasoning
    The plaintiff had boarded the car as a passenger for the city of Manila and the company undertook to convey
    him for hire.

    3. YES, the defendant is liable for the damages


    Ratio/ Reasoning
    Upon failure to comply with that obligation arising from the contract, the company incurred the liability defined
    in articles 1103-1107 of the Civil Code.
    4. No, the defendant could not avail of the last paragraph of Art 1903
    Ratio/ Reasoning
     The last paragraph of article 1903 of the civil code refers to liability incurred by negligence in the absence of
    contractual relation, that is, to the culpa aquiliana of the civil law and not to liability incurred by breach of
    contract; therefore, it is irrelevant to prove that the defendant company had exercised due care in the selection
    and instruction of the motorman who was in charge of its car and that he was in experienced and reliable
    servant.
    5. The defendant is liable for the damages ordinary recoverable for the breach of contractual obligation,
    against a person who has acted in good faith, which could be reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation is
    contracted.
    Ratio
    The extent of the liability for the breach of a contract must be determined in the light of the situation in
    existence at the time the contract is made; and the damages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited to
    such as might be reasonably foreseen in the light of the facts then known to the contracting parties.
    Reasoning
    The court has the power to moderate liability according to the circumstances of the case, i.e. when the
    defendant must answer for the consequences of the negligence of its employees. Also, an employer who has
    displayed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is entitled to be considered a debtor in good
    faith (w/n meaning of article 1107, old CC)
    5.1. NO, the trial judge was liberal enough to the plaintiff.
    Reasoning
    As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was unable to properly attend his professional labors for 3 months and
    suspend his practice for that period. By testimonial evidence, his customary income, as a physician, was about
    P300/month. So the trial judge accordingly allowed P900 as damages for loss of earnings.
    5.2 YES. The trial judge erred in awarding such damages.
    Ratio
    Damage of this character could not, at the time of the accident, have been foreseen by the delinquent party as
    a probable consequence of the injury inflicted
    Reasoning
    The representative from Negros Occidental has supposedly asked Dr. Montinola to nominate the plaintiff as
    district health officer of Negros Occidental for two years, with a salary of P1,600 per annum and a possible
    outside practice worth of P350. However, even if true, the damages were too speculative to be the basis of
    recovery in a civil action.
    5.3 NO. The trial court was fully justified in rejecting the exaggerated estimate of damages allegedly created.
    Ratio/ Reasoning
    The plaintiff alleged, even showing testimonial evidences from numerous medical experts, that he developed
    infarct of the liver and traumatic neurosis, accompanied by nervousness, vertigo, and other disturbing
    symptoms of a serious and permanent character, and these manifestations of disorder rendered him liable to a
    host of other dangerous diseases, and that restoration to health could only be accomplished after long years of
    complete repose.-The medical experts introduced by the defendant testified however that the plaintiff’s injuries,
    considered in their physical effects, were trivial and that the attendant nervous derangement, with its
    complicated train of ailments, was merely simulated.-According to the court, the evidence showed that
    immediately after the incident the plaintiff, sensing in the situation a possibility of profit, devoted himself with
    great assiduity to the promotion of this litigation; and with the aid of his own professional knowledge,
    supplemented by suggestions obtained from his professional friends and associates, he enveloped himself
    more or less unconsciously in an atmosphere of delusion which rendered him incapable of appreciating at their
    true value the symptoms of disorder which he developed.

    5.4 No. He is only justified with P200, or the amount actually paid to Dr. Montes (the doctor who treated the
    plaintiff) which is the obligation supposedly incurred with respect to treatment for said injuries.
    Ratio
    In order to constitute a proper element of recovery in an action of this character, the medical service for which
    reimbursement is claimed should not only be such as to have created a legal obligation upon the plaintiff but
    such as was reasonably necessary in view of his actual condition.
    Reasoning
    Dr. Montes, in his testimony, speaks in the most general terms with respect to the times and extent of the
    services rendered; and it is not clear that those services which were rendered many months, or year, after the
    incident had in fact any necessary or legitimate relation to the injuries received by the plaintiff on the obligation
    supposedly incurred by the plaintiff to three other physicians: (1) it does not appear that said physicians have
    in fact made charges for those services with the intention of imposing obligations on the plaintiff to pay them;
    (2)in employing so many physicians the plaintiff must have had in view the successful promotion of the issue of
    this lawsuit rather than the bona fide purpose of effecting the cure of his injuries.
    6. YES, certificates or the written statements of the physicians which were referred to in the trial cannot be
    admitted as primary evidence since it is fundamentally of a hearsay nature
    Ratio
    The only legitimate use of certificates could be put, as evidence for plaintiff, was to allow the physician who
    issued it to refer thereto, to refresh his memory upon details which he might have forgotten
    DECISION
    Judgment from the trial court modified by reducing the amount of the recovery to P1,100, with legal interest
    from Nov. 8, 1916

    You might also like