MARTINEZ vs.

WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK

G.R. No. L-5691 1910-12-27 MORELAND, J.
Created by: Micaller, Aljenneth
Plaintiffs-appellees Defendant-appellant
S. D. MARTINEZ and his wife, WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK
CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZ
Recit Ready Summary
Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding in a carromata on Calle Real in Ermita along the
left-hand side of the street, when a delivery wagon drawn by a pair of horses
belonging to the defendant William Van Buskirk came along the street in the
opposite direction. The driver of the carromata, observing that the delivery wagon
was coming at great speed, crowded close to the sidewalk on the left-hand side of
the street and stopped, in order to give the delivery wagon an opportunity to pass
by. Instead of passing by, the wagon and horses ran into the carromata occupied by
Carmen Martinez with her child and overturned it, severely wounding Mrs. Martinez
by making a serious cut upon her head, and also injuring the carromata itself.
For his part, Van Buskirk alleged that the delivery wagon had been sent to deliver
some forage. The cochero tied the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon and
went back inside of the wagon to unload the forage to be delivered. While in the act
of carrying some of it out, another vehicle drove by, the driver of which cracked a
whip and made some other noises, which frightened the horses attached to the
delivery wagon and they ran away, and the driver was thrown from the inside of the
wagon out through the rear upon the ground and was unable to stop the horses as
they ran up the street and came into collision with the carromata.
Van Buskirk himself was not with the vehicle at the time of the incident.
Facts of the Case
 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
plaintiff’s 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
defendant’s 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.
 From the stated facts, the 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.
Issues Ruling
Whether or not the employer, who has furnished a gentle and NO
tractable team (of horses) and a trusty and capable driver, is liable
for the negligence of such driver.
Rationale/Analysis/ Legal Basis
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.
Disposition
The trial court found Van Buskirk guilty of negligence.