Art.

11-12
Martinez v Van Buskirk
G.R. No. L-5691 December 27, 1910
S. D. MARTINEZ and his wife, CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZ, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.WILLIAM
VAN BUSKIRK, defendant-appellant.
Moreland, J.:
Case Doctrine:
It is a universal practice of merchants during that time to deliver products through
horse-drawn vehicles; and it is also considered universal practice to leave the horses in
the manner in which they were left during the accident. It has been practiced for a long
time and generally has not been the cause of accidents or injuries the judgment is
therefore reversed.
Facts:
On the 11th day of September, 1908, Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding a
carromata in Ermita, Manila when a delivery wagon owned by the defendant (used for the
transportation of fodder and to which two horses are attached), came from the opposite
direction, while their carromata went close to the sidewalk in order to let the delivery
wagon pass by.
However, instead of merely passing by, the horses ran into the
carromata occupied by the plaintiff with her child and overturned it, causing a serious cut
upon the plaintiffs head.
The defendant contends that the cochero, who was driving his delivery wagon at
the time of the accident, was actually a good servant and was considered a safe and
reliable cochero. He also claims that the cochero was tasked to deliver some forage at
Calle Herran, and for that purpose the defendants employee tied the driving lines of
the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon for the purpose of unloading
the forage to be delivered. However, a vehicle passed by the driver and made noises
that frightened the horses causing them to run. The employee failed to stop the horses
since he was thrown upon the ground.
The lower court ruled that the defendant was guilty of negligence. The court
specifically cited a paragraph of Article 1903 of the Civil Code. Hence, this is appeal to
reverse such decision.
Issue: Whether or not the employer, who has furnished a gentle and tractable
team (of horses) and a trusty and capable driver, is liable for the negligence of
such driver.
NO. The cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving the horses in the manner
described by the evidence in this case. It is believed that acts or performances which, in a
long time, have not been destructive and which are approved by the society are
considered as custom. Hence, they cannot be considered as unreasonable or imprudent.
The reason why they have been permitted by the society is that they are beneficial rather
that prejudicial. One could not easily hold someone negligent because of some act that led
to an injury or accident. It would be unfair therefore to render the cochero negligent
because of such circumstances.
The court further held that it is a universal practice of merchants during that time to
deliver products through horse-drawn vehicles; and it is also considered universal practice
to leave the horses in the manner in which they were left during the accident. It has been
practiced for a long time and generally has not been the cause of accidents or injuries the
judgment is therefore reversed.