No. 7760 – E. M. WRIGHT, plaintiff and appellant, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC R. R. & LIGHT Co., defendant and appellant.
MORELAND, J.
Rule Synopsis
One’s state of intoxication is generally irrelevant in the determination of his negligence, but it is a factor that may be considered.
Facts
Manila Electric operates electric street railways, one of which runs along the street in front of Wright’s residence.
On night, as Wright passes Manila Electric’s railways in his calesa, the horse stumbled, leaped forward, and fell, causing the vehicle to strike one of the rails with great force. Wright was thrown as a result sustaining injuries.
Wright filed a civil complaint for damages against Manila Electric contending that it was negligent in maintaining its railways; that at the night of the accident, the rails were above-ground at around 5-6 inches, given that the ties upon which the rails rested also projected out of the ground.
Manila Electric, on the other hand, said that Wright was also negligent, being intoxicated at the time the accident happened.
The trial court found both parties guilty, but the Manila Electric’s negligence is greater than that of Wright. The SC affirmed.
Issue
Did Wright’s negligence contributed to the “principal occurrence” (proximate cause) or “only to his own injury” (contributory negligence)?
Ruling and Discussion
Neither. The Supreme Court found no negligence on the part of Wright.
As a general rule, it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than’by a sober one.
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence.
The conclusion [by the trial court] that if Wright had been sober he would not have been injured is not warranted by the facts as found. A horse crossing the railroad tracks with not only the rails but a portion of the ties themselves above-ground, stumbling by reason of the unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashing against the rails with such force as to break a wheel, this might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no matter what his condition; and to conclude that, under such circumstances, a sober man would not have fallen while a drunken man did, is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of speculation and guesswork.
Dispositive
Judgment affirmed.