Preciolita V. Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co.
By: Von Ryan Emmanuel Adrias G02 Torts & Damages
GR No. L-21291 March 28, 1969
J. Fernando
Topic: NEGLIGENCE, DEFINED
FACTS
The instant case is an appeal on the decision of the lower court dismissing Preciolita Corliss’
Corliss ’ complaint for recovery of
damages against Manila Railroad Co.
On the evening of February 21, 1957, at the railroad crossing in Balibago, Pampanga in front of Clark Air Force Base,
the husband of Preciolia, Ralph Corliss, an air police, was driving a jeep, together with a P.C. soldier, to the Clark base to return
said jeep. Said jeep Ralph was driving collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad. Ralph died of serious burns in the base
hospital the next day.
PreciolitaThe
filed
a complaint
for recovery
of damages
against
Manila
Railroad. Theand
lower
court, however,
in favor
of
Manila Railroad.
lower
court opined
that Ralph
was a victim
of his
own wrongdoing
miscalculation
whenruled
he took
the risk
and attempted to beat the oncoming locomotive and aiming to reach the other side of the railroad crossing before said locomotive
could pass the jeep by. Hence, the present case.
ISSUE
Whether or not there is negligence on the part of Manila Railroad
Railroad and therefore, should be held liable for damag
damages
es - NO
HELD
The Court ruled that the present action is predicated on negligence, the Civil Code making clear that whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being negligence, is under obligation to pay for the damage done.
The Court cited the cases of U.S. v. Juanillo and U.S. v. Barias in defining what is negligence: “The failure to observe for
the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance justly
demand whereby such other person suffers injury.”
injury.”
Also cited was case of Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co. which defined Negligence as: “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.”
circumstances. ”
In determining the presence of negligence, the court explained that every case must be dependent on its facts. The
circumstances indicative of lack of due care must be judged in the light of what could reasonably be expected of the parties. If the
objective standard of prudence be met, then negligence is ruled out.
In the present case, it is improper to impute negligence
negligence on Manila Railroad since material facts show that it is clear that
Ralph Corliss was so sufficiently warned in advance (the lower court pointed out that moments before the collision, Teodorico
Capili who was manning the locomotive which was then 300 meters away from exact point of accident, blew the siren and
repeated it in compliance with the regulation) 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
t o move on.
A prudent man under similar circumstances would have acted in such a manner, but unfortunately, Ralph had failed to do
so despite him having been crossing the checkpoint frequently, if not daily and must have been aware that locomotive engines and
trains usually pass at that particular crossing where the accident had taken place.
In addition, the Court reiterated the ruling the case of U.S. v. Manabat & Pasibi:
Pasibi: “…
“…we
we think it is incumbent upon one
approaching a railroad crossing to use all of his faculties of seeing and hearing. He should approach a railroad crossing cautiously
and carefully. He should look and listen and do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do before he attempts to cross the
track."
NOTES
Witnesses:
Ronald J. Ennis
- a witness of the plaintiff.
- he said that at the time of the accident, he also awaiting transportation at the entrance of Clark Field, which was about 40 to 50
yards away from the tracks and that while there he saw the jeep coming towards the Base. He said that said jeep slowed down
before reaching the crossing, Elaborating, he declared that while it was slowing down, Corliss
Cor liss Jr. shifted into first gear an d that
was what he meant by a brief stop.
Virgilio de la Paz
- another witness of the plaintiff.
- he was at the Balibago checkpoint and saw the train coming from Angeles and a jeep going towards the direction of Clark Field.
He stated that he heard the whistle of the locomotive and saw the collision. The jeep, which caught fire, was pushed forward. He
helped the P.C. soldier. He stated that he saw the jeep running fast and heard the tooting of the horn. It did not stop at the railroad
crossing, according to him." 4
Teodorico Capili,
- one who operated the locomotive.
- testified that before the locomotive, which had been previously inspected and found to be in good condition approached, the
crossing, that is, about 300 meters away, he blew the siren and repeated it in compliance with the regulations until he saw the jeep
suddenly spurt and that although the locomotive was running between 20 and 25 kilometers an hour and although he had applied
the brakes, the jeep was caught in the middle of the tracks."