Yamada V Manila Railroad

 

 Y  Yamada amada v. v. Manila Railroad Railroad Co. & Bachrach Garage Garage & Taxicab Taxicab Co. Facts •

• •

• •

•

Plaintifs (Butaro Yamada, Kenjiro Karabayashi, Takutaru Uyehara), together with three comanions, hired an automobile !rom the Bachrach "arage #  Ta$icab  Ta$icab %o& !or !or a tri to %a'ite %a'ite iejo& iejo&  The automobile was was dri'en and and controlled controlled by Bachrachs Bachrachs dri'er& dri'er&  The journey journey to %a'ite iejo iejo was made without incident& incident& *owe'er, on the return tri, while crossing the tracks o! +anila ailroad %o& in the barrio o! -an .uan, municiality o! %a'ite iejo, the automobile was struck by a train and the laintifs injured&  The laintifs /led a comlaint comlaint with the trial trial court&  The trial court court dismissed the comlaint on the merits as to the +anila ailroad %omany and held Bachrach liable !or damages&  The /ndings o! the T%0 T%0 o  The dri'er o! the the automobile dro'e dro'e his machine machine uon the railroad railroad tracks without obser'ing the recautions which ordinary care and rudence would re1uire, without reducing seed and without taking any recaution looking to determining whether there was danger !rom a train or locomoti'e& o

o

 The dri'er wascause guilty o! o!the gross gross negligence negligence and that said said negligence negligence was the ro$imate accident&  The dri'er had been instru instructed cted by the ta$icab ta$icab comany to aroach aroach and ass o'er railroad tracks in the manner and !orm !ollowed&

Issues 2& 3o4 the the chaufe chaufeur ur was was negligen negligentt  Y5Defendants: On approaching the railroad crossing from the direction in which the automobile was travelling at the time, the view of the railroad tracks in both directions was obstructed by bushes and trees growing alongside thereof, and that it was impossible for a person approaching the crossing even though on guard, to detect by sight the approach of a train. 6! that were the case, it was clearly the duty o! the dri'er to reduce the seed o! his car and the noise to such an e$tent that he would be able to determine !rom the unrestricted and uninterruted use o! all his !aculties whether or not a train was near& 6t is the law that a erson must use ordinary care and rudence in assing o'er a railroad crossing& *owe'er, the records show that the chaufeur dro'e uon the tracks without in'estigation or recaution o! any kind& 

• 

•

•

• 

•

D: There was a custom established established among automobile drivers of Manila by which they habitually drove their cars over railroad crossings in the manner in which the automobile was driven by defendant's servant on the occasion in controversy. Practice which is dangerous to human li!e cannot rien into a custom which will rotect anyone who !ollows it& To go uon a railroad crossing without making any efort to ascertain the aroach o! a train is so ha7ardous an act

 

and one so dangerous to li!e, that no one may be ermitted to e$cuse himsel!  who does it, ro'ided injury result 8& 3o4 the the lain laintifs tifs were were liable liable  49 • 

•

D: The negligence of the driver of the automobile, if any, was imputable to the plaintis, they havingthe permitted the driver to approach and to pass over the railroad crossing without use of ordinary care and diligence determine the pro!imity of a train or locomotive, and having made no eort to caution or instruct him or compel him to take reasonable care in making the crossing. : erson who hires a ublic automobile and gi'es the dri'er direction as to the lace to which he wishes to be con'eyed, but e$ercise no other control o'er the conduct o! the dri'er, is not resonsible resonsible !or acts o! negligence o! the latter or re'ented !rom reco'ering !or injuries sufered !rom a collision between the automobile and a train, caused by the negligence either o! the locomoti'e engineer or the automobile dri'er&

;& 3o4 +anila +anila ailr ailroad oad %o& %o& was negli negligent gent  49  The locomoti'e engineer engineer ga'e timely timely signals on aroaching aroaching the crossing crossing (e&g& bell was rung, whistle was blown)&  The emloyees o! the +anila ailroad ailroad !ully !ully er!ormed er!ormed their duty as the train aroached the crossing&

•

•