You are on page 1of 1

Del Prado v. MERALCO, G.R. No.

L-29462 (March 7, 1929) the injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the power
prematurely. Again, the situation before us is one where the negligent act of the
Facts: company's servant succeeded the negligent act of the plaintiff, and the
negligence of the company must be considered the proximate cause of the
Teodorico Florenciano, Meralcos motorman, was driving the companys street injury. The rule here applicable seems to be analogous to, if not identical with
car along Hidalgo Street. Plaintiff Ignacio Del Prado ran across the street to that which is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of "the last clear chance." In
catch the car. The motorman eased up but did not put the car into complete accordance with this doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured
stop. Plaintiff was able to get hold of the rail and step his left foot when the car will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise
accelerated. As a result, plaintiff slipped off and fell to the ground. His foot was of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
crushed by the wheel of the car. He filed a complaint for culpa contractual. negligence of the injured party. The negligence of the plaintiff was, however,
contributory to the accident and must be considered as a mitigating
Issues: circumstance.
(1) Whether the motorman was negligent
(2) Whether MERALCO is liable for breach of contract of carriage
(3) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff

Held:

(1) We may observe at the outset that there is no obligation on the part of a
street railway company to stop its cars to let on intending passengers at other
points than those appointed for stoppage. Nevertheless, although the motorman
of this car was not bound to stop to let the plaintiff on, it was his duty to do no
act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff's peril while he was
attempting to board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was, in our
opinion, a breach of this duty.

(2) The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and its patrons is of a
contractual nature; and a failure on the part of the carrier to use due care in
carrying its passengers safely is a breach of duty (culpa contractual).
Furthermore, the duty that the carrier of passengers owes to its patrons extends
to persons boarding the cars as well as to those alighting therefrom.

Where liability arises from a mere tort (culpa aquiliana), not involving a breach
of positive obligation, an employer, or master, may exculpate himself by proving
that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the damage; whereas this
defense is not available if the liability of the master arises from a breach of
contractual duty (culpa contractual). In the case before us the company pleaded
as a special defense that it had used all the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent the damage suffered by the plaintiff; and to establish this contention
the company introduced testimony showing that due care had been used in
training and instructing the motorman in charge of this car in his art. But this
proof is irrelevant in view of the fact that the liability involved was derived from
a breach of obligation.

(3) It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting to board the moving
car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of

You might also like