Yamada Yamada v. v. Manila Railroad Railroad Co. & Bachrach Garage Garage & Taxicab Taxicab Co. Facts •
• •
• •
•
Plaintifs (Butaro Yamada, Kenjiro Karabayashi, Takutaru Uyehara), together with three comanions, hired an automobile !rom the Bachrach "arage # Ta$icab Ta$icab %o& !or !or a tri to %a'ite %a'ite iejo& iejo& The automobile was was dri'en and and controlled controlled by Bachrachs Bachrachs dri'er& dri'er& The journey journey to %a'ite iejo iejo was made without incident& incident& *owe'er, on the return tri, while crossing the tracks o! +anila ailroad %o& in the barrio o! -an .uan, municiality o! %a'ite iejo, the automobile was struck by a train and the laintifs injured& The laintifs /led a comlaint comlaint with the trial trial court& The trial court court dismissed the comlaint on the merits as to the +anila ailroad %omany and held Bachrach liable !or damages& The /ndings o! the T%0 T%0 o The dri'er o! the the automobile dro'e dro'e his machine machine uon the railroad railroad tracks without obser'ing the recautions which ordinary care and rudence would re1uire, without reducing seed and without taking any recaution looking to determining whether there was danger !rom a train or locomoti'e& o The dri'er was guilty o! gross gross negligence negligence and that said said negligence negligence was the ro$imate cause o! the accident& o The dri'er had been instructed instructed by the ta$icab ta$icab comany to aroach aroach and ass o'er railroad tracks in the manner and !orm !ollowed&
Issues 2& 3o4 the the chaufe chaufeur ur was was negligen negligentt Y5Defendants: On approaching the railroad crossing from the direction in which the automobile was travelling at the time, the view of the railroad tracks in both directions was obstructed by bushes and trees growing alongside thereof, and that it was impossible for a person approaching the crossing even though on guard, to detect by sight the approach of a train. 6! that were the case, it was clearly the duty o! the dri'er to reduce the seed o! his car and the noise to such an e$tent that he would be able to determine !rom the unrestricted and uninterruted use o! all his !aculties whether or not a train was near& 6t is the law that a erson must use ordinary care and rudence in assing o'er a railroad crossing& *owe'er, the records show that the chaufeur dro'e uon the tracks without in'estigation or recaution o! any kind&
•
•
•
•
•
D: There was a custom established established among automobile drivers of Manila by which they habitually drove their cars over railroad crossings in the manner in which the automobile was driven by defendant's servant on the occasion in controversy. Practice which is dangerous to human li!e cannot rien into a custom which will rotect anyone who !ollows it& To go uon a railroad crossing without making any efort to ascertain the aroach o! a train is so ha7ardous an act
and one so dangerous to li!e, that no one may be ermitted to e$cuse himsel! who does it, ro'ided injury result 8& 3o4 the laintifs were liable 49 •
•
D: The negligence of the driver of the automobile, if any, was imputable to the plaintis, they having permitted the driver to approach and pass over the railroad crossing without the use of ordinary care and diligence to determine the pro!imity of a train or locomotive, and having made no eort to caution or instruct him or compel him to take reasonable care in making the crossing. : erson who hires a ublic automobile and gi'es the dri'er direction as to the lace to which he wishes to be con'eyed, but e$ercise no other control o'er the conduct o! the dri'er, is not resonsible !or acts o! negligence o! the latter or re'ented !rom reco'ering !or injuries sufered !rom a collision between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence either o! the locomoti'e engineer or the automobile dri'er&
;& 3o4 +anila ailroad %o& was negligent 49 The locomoti'e engineer ga'e timely signals on aroaching the crossing (e&g& bell was rung, whistle was blown)& The emloyees o! the +anila ailroad !ully er!ormed their duty as the train aroached the crossing& •
•
<& 3o4 Bachrach was liable Y5Bachrach !ailed to comly with one o! the essential re1uirements o! the law o! negligence in this jurisdiction, that o! suer'ision and instruction, including the romulgation o! roer rules and regulations and the !ormulation and ublication o! roer instructions !or their guidance in cases where such rules and regulations and instructions are necessary& 6t was the custom o! the dri'er to aroach and ass o'er railroad crossings without ade1uate recautions, and that such custom was known to and had been sanctioned by the o=cials o! the ta$icab comany& •
•
