Torts And Damages Case Digest: Wright V.

Manila Electric (1914)

G.R. No. L-7760 October 1, 1914
Lessons Applicable: Intoxication (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

 August 8, 1909 night time: Wright who was intoxicated drove in his
calesa and as his horse leap forward along the rails of the Manila Electric
company and it fell
 Wright was thrown and got injured
 that the ties upon which the rails rested projected from one-third to one-
half of their depth out of the ground making the tops of the rails some 5
or 6 inches or more above the level of the street
 RTC: both parties were negligent, but that the plaintiff's negligence was
not as great as defendant's and under the authority of the case of Rakes
vs. A. G. & P. Co. apportioned the damages and awarded Wright a
judgment of P1,000
ISSUE: W/N Wright's negligence contributed to the 'principal occurrence' or
'only to his own injury (NOT contributory) thereby he cannot recover

HELD:NO. Affirmed

 Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence. It is but a circumstance to be

considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence. It is the
general rule that 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 than by a sober one.
 Manila Electric or its employees were negligent by reason of having left the rails and
a part of the ties uncovered in a street where there is a large amount of travel
 If the Wright had been prudent on the night in question and had not attempted to
drive his conveyance while in a drunken condition, he would certainly have avoided
the damages which he received
 Both parties were negligent and both contributed to the resulting damages,
although the Wright, in the judgment of the court, contributed in greater proportion
to the damages
 no facts are stated therein which warrant the conclusion that the Wright
was negligent
 It is impossible to say that a sober man would not have fallen from the
vehicle under the conditions described
 It having been found that the plaintiff was not negligent, it is unnecessary
to discuss the question presented by the appellant company with
reference to the applicability of the case of Rakes vs. A. G. & P. Co. and
we do not find facts in the opinion of the court below which justify a
larger verdict than the one found.

Torts And Damages Case Digest: Julian Del

Rosario V. Manila Electric Co (1932)
G.R. No. L-35283 November 5, 1932
Lessons Applicable: Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
 August 4, 1930 2 pm: trouble developed in a wire used by Manila Electric
Company on Dimas-Alang Street for the purpose of conducting electricity
used in lighting the City of Manila and its suburbs
 Jose Noguera, who had charge of a tienda nearby, first noticed that the
wire was burning and its connections smoking
 the wire parted and one of the ends of the wire fell to the ground among
some shrubbery close to the way
 Noguera went to the nearby garage and asked Jose Soco, the
timekeeper, to telephone the Malabon station of the Manila Electric
Company
 2.25 p.m.: Soco transmitted the message and the station told him that
they would send an inspector
 4 p.m.: neighborhood school was dismissed and the children went home
 Saturnino Endrina made a motion as if it touch the wire
 Jose Salvador, happened to be the son of an electrician and his father
had cautioned him never to touch a broken electrical wire, as it might
have a current
 Alberto del Rosario said that "I have for some time been in the habit of
touching wires" and so feeling challenged put out his index finger and
touch the wire
 He immediately fell face downwards, exclaiming "Ay! madre"
 The end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the
post
 A crowd soon collected, and some one cut the wire and disengaged the
body
 Upon arrival at St. Luke's Hospital he was pronounced dead.
 Trial Court: absolved Manila Electric Company
ISSUE: W/N Manila Electric Company should be held liable for negligence that
caused the death of Alberto

HELD: YES. judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the plaintiff
will recover of the defendant the sum of P1,250, with costs of both instances
 The engineer of the company says that it was customary for the company
to make a special inspection of these wires at least once in six months,
and that all of the company's inspectors were required in their daily
rounds to keep a lookout for trouble of this kind.
 presumption of negligence on the part of the Manila Electric
Company from the breakage of this wire has not been overcome, and it is
in our opinion responsible for the accident
 It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can properly be imputed to
the deceased, owing to his immature years and the natural curiosity
which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary, and the
mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the
age of 8 years does not, in our opinion, alter the case. But even
supposing that contributory negligence could in some measure be
properly imputed to the deceased, — a proposition upon which the
members of the court do not all agree, — yet such negligence would not
be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case, not having been the
determining cause of the accident.