No. L-21291 – PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD Co., defendant-appellee.
FERNANDO, J.
Rule Synopsis
Failure to observe the proper diligence to avoid the injury, when it is incumbent upon the injured person to do so, constitutes negligence.
Facts
At around midnight, a jeepney driven by Ralph Corliss (21 y.o.), collided with a locomotive of Manila Rairoad. This resulted to the former’s death due to serious burns.
Ralph was an air police of the Clark Air Force Base. The accident happened while he was returning the jeep to the Base. The PC soldier with him was also injured.
Ralph’s wife, thus filed a civil case to recover damages from Manila Railroad.
The two witnesses presented by Corliss testified that: while Ralph slowed down before reaching the crossing, he did not fully stop but merely shifted into first gear; and that the jeep was running fast and heard the tooting of the horn but did not stop at the railroad crossing.
The witness for Manila Railroad testified that the locomotive was in good condition, and that he blew the siren repeatedly in compliance with the regulations until he saw the jeep dashed in front, at which time it was still caught on the tracks despite his application of brakes.
The lower court dismissed the complaint, finding that Ralph’s negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The SC affirmed.
Issue
Was Manila Railroad negligent?
Ruling and Discussion
Procedural note: SC deferred to the lower court’s finding of facts, as the credibility of the witnesses were not in question, and nothing on record arbitrary or abusive conduct on the part of the trial judge, among others.
No. Manila Railroad was not negligent.
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. (United States v. Juanillo; United States v. Barias)
It is also the want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances. (Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co.)
Using these definitions, the SC held that, given the factual findings, no negligence can be imputed to Manila Railroad.
On Corliss’ arguments:
- the whistle was not sounded and the brakes were not applied.
- the crossing bars were not put down
- there was no guard at the gate-house
As to the first argument, the SC held that this is factual in character which cannot be resolved in the present petition. As to the second and third arguments, the SC held that these circumstances does not excuse Ralph from his duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision. The Court also said that these circumstances, individually or in combination, were not sufficient to justify a finding of negligence on Manila Railroad’s part. These factors cited by Corliss were not decisive or determinative of the case.
[Note: the SC made a discussion of the standard of care expected of people crossing railroad tracks. There were attempts to standardize but in the end, the courts were left with the basic idea that negligence cases must be judged on a case-by-case basis: “every case on questions of negligence is to be decided in accordance with the peculiar circumstances that present themselves. There can be no hard and fast rule.”]
As summary, SC cited the lower court decision: “Predicated on the testimonies of the plaintiff’s witnesses, on the knowledge of the deceased and his familiarity with the setup of the checkpoint, the existence of the tracks; and on the further f act that the locomotive had blown its siren or whistle, which was heard by said witnesses, it is clear that Corliss, Jr. was so sufficiently warned in advance of the oncoming train that it was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident—and this consisted simply in stopping his vehicle before the crossing and allowing the train to move on. A prudent man under similar circumstances would have acted in this manner. This, unfortunately, Corliss, Jr. failed to do.”
Dispositive
Decision affirmed.