Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

JUNIO V MANILA RAILROAD CO.

found by the engineer on the side of the engine


GR NO. 37044-37045 | MARCH 29, 1933 upon arrival at Paniqui, the next station, which
Imperial, J. indicates that it was torn from the front of the
Subido | Group 4 radiator when the auto collided with the right side
of the engine of the night express.
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: CONSOLACION JUNIO ARGUMENTS BY BOTH: driver alleges that he slowed
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY down from 19 miles an hour, at which rate he was then
going, to 16 miles, and that he was on the lookout for
[BEATRIZ SOLORIA vs MANILA RAILOAD in the other case] any approaching train, while the engineer insists that
he rang the bell and sounded the whistle before
TOPIC: reaching the crossing. Both parties claim to be free from
Defenses guilt.
TC: ABSOLVED RAILROAD CO. HtP
CASE SUMMARY: Gabino Soliman testified on his own behalf in COMPLAINT OF P: TC erred in the ff: not finding company
another criminal case where he, with several others, was charged negligent in leaving its gates open at the moment of the
with estafa. accident when a special night express train was passing. 2)
driver of car was negligent 3) P responsible for drivers
TERMS: (technical/legal terms) negligence 4) absolving defendant
estafa fraud keme keme
ISSUES:
PRECEDENTS: WONManila Railroad Co. is liable? YES. They are liable
Little vs Hackett: responsibility cannot, within any to both plaintiffs in the case
recognized rules of law, be fastened upon one who has in
no way interfered with and controlled in the matter causing RULING:
the injury. From the simple fact of hiring the carriage or From the evidence, it is obvious that the defendant as well
riding in it no such liability can arise. The party hiring or as the driver of the car in which the plaintiffs were
riding must in some way have cooperated in producing the passengers were negligent, the former because, by
injury complained of before he incurs any liability for it installing the gates at the place or crossing where the
FACTS: accident occurred, it had voluntarily imposed upon itself
Around 11pm, Apr. 13, 1930, Consolacion Junio, a young the obligation to operate them even at night and to
woman 22 years of age, and Beatriz Soloria, another young close them every time a train passed in order to avoid
woman of 18 years, with some other persons were causing injury to the public. It has been said that the
traveling in a PU-Car on the road between Calasiao and gates constitute an invitation to the public to pass without
Santa Barbara. (Pangasinan) bound for Asingan via fear of danger, and failure to operate them conveniently
Dagupan constitutes negligence on the part of the company.
o At the intersection, the car collided with the driver was, likewise, negligent because he did not comply
engine of the night express (of defendant with his duty to slacken the speed of the car and to
company) which left Dagupan for Manila at 11 "look and listen" before crossing the intersection and,
o'clock that same night and which was then above all, because he did not maintain a reasonable
passing over the crossing in question at great speed so as to permit him to stop any moment if it were
speed. necessary in order to avoid an accident.
o Car was thrown some distance and Junios right well recognized principle of law that the negligence of a
leg was amputated and her right arm fractured driver, who, in turn, is guilty of contributory
while Soloria received head injuries negligence, cannot be imputed to a passenger who has
The crossing is presumed to be dangerous: gates were no control over him in the management of the vehicle
required at that crossing. (Section 83, Act No. 1459, as and with whom he sustains no relation of master and
amended by Act No. 2100.) servant stricter application in this case because public
On the night of the accident, gates were not lowered and service involved
there was no notice that they were temporarily out of order IN THIS CASE: nothing to show plaintiffs incurred in any
o HOWEVER, notice that a railroad crossing was negligence imputable to them and we do not see any
there just before the crossing on one side reason whatsoever why they should be made responsible
of the road leading from the town of Calasiao for the driver's negligence.
there was a signpost bearing the notice,
"RAILROAD CROSSING
o the gate in question was about three hundred
(300) meters from the railroad station at Calasiao
o on each side of the crossing there was a wooden
bar operated only during the daytime by a woman
employee of the defendant
o car driven by the chauffeur, Pedro Talbo, was an
old Ford bearing number plates PU-3636, which
meant that it was a hired car. The plate was