CAEDO V YU KHE THAI Under the foregoing provision, if the causative factor was the driver's negligence, the

foregoing provision, if the causative factor was the driver's negligence, the owner of
the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the
PETITIONER: MARCIAL T. CAEDO, JUANA SANGALANG CAEDO, and the Minors, exercise of due diligence.
EPHRAIM CAEDO, EILEEN CAEDO, ROSE ELAINE CAEDO, suing through their father,
MARCIAL T. CAEDO, as guardian ad litem, plaintiffs-appellants,
CHAPMAN V UNDERWOOD The same rule applies where the owner is present, unless the
RESPONDENT: YU KHE THAI and RAFAEL BERNARDO
negligent acts of the driver are continued for such a length of time as to give the owner a
DATE: December 18, 1968
reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct his driver to desist therefrom. An owner
PONENTE: MAKALINTAL, J
who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the
TOPIC: Owner of motor vehicle
law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe
them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts.
FACTS:

As a result of a vehicular accident in which plaintiff Marcial Caedo and several members of his In the present case, Rafael Bernardo had been Yu Khe Thai's driver since 1937, and before
family were injured they filed this suit for recovery of damages from the defendants. that had been employed by Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. in the same capacity for over ten years.
 During that time he had no record of violation of traffic laws and regulations. No
 Mishap occurred at around 5:30am in around the vicinity of San Lorenzo Village negligence for having employed him at all may be imputed to his master.
 Caedo was driving his car on his way from his home in Quezon City to the airport –  Negligence can be imputed to the owner when in his failure to detain the driver from
With them in the car were Mrs. Caedo and three daughters. pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also
 Coming from the opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, with his driver sufficient time to act upon it.
Rafael Bernardo
 The two cars were traveling at fairly moderate speeds, considering the condition of the No negligence can be imputed.
road and the absence of traffic  The car has been running in a reasonable speed – the road was wide open and no
o — the Mercury at 40 to 50 kilometers per hour, and the Cadillac at traffic.
approximately 30 to 35 miles  He became aware of the presence of the carretela when his car was only twelve
o Headlights were noticeable meters behind it, but then his failure to see it earlier did not constitute negligence, for
 Ahead of the Cadillac, going in the same direction, was a caretella owned by a certain he was not himself at the wheel.
Pedro Bautista.  And even when he did see it at that distance, he could not have anticipated his driver's
o The carretela was towing another horse by means of a short rope coiled sudden decision to pass the carretela on its left side in spite of the fact that another
around the rig's vertical post on the right side and held at the other end by car was approaching from the opposite direction.
Julian Bautista.
 Rafael Bernardo testified that he was almost upon the rig when he saw it in front of The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess
him, only eight meters away – this was the first indication of negligence the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly.
o Carretela has lights on each side, that is enough to give him warning  The thought that entered his mind, he said, was that if he sounded a sudden warning it
o And even if he didn’t see the lights as he claim, he should have seen the might only make the other man nervous and make the situation worse.
carretela if he had been careful
 Mercury was coming on its own lane from the opposite direction -- Bernardo, instead Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional
of slowing down or stopping behind the carretela until that lane was clear, veered to drivers.
the left in order to pass.  In many cases they refrain from driving their own cars and instead hire other persons
o As a result he collided with the oncoming vehicle to drive for them precisely because they are not trained or endowed with sufficient
discernment to know the rules of traffic or to appreciate the relative dangers posed by
the different situations that are continually encountered on the road.
 Caedo had seen the Cadillac on its own lane; he slackened his speed, judged the
distances in relation to the carretela and concluded that the Cadillac would wait  What would be a negligent omission under aforesaid Article on the part of a car owner
behind. who is in the prime of age and knows how to handle a motor vehicle is not necessarily
so on the part, say, of an old and infirm person who is not similarly equipped.
 Bernardo, however, decided to take a gamble — beat the Mercury to the point where it
would be in line with the carretela, or else squeeze in between them in any case.
o Since the car was moving at from 30 to 35 miles per hour it was already too The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency
late to apply the brakes when Bernardo saw the carretela either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor
vehicle.
 The test of his intelligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do
There is no doubt at all that the collision was directly traceable to Rafael Bernardo's negligence
that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the
and that he must be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
accident
 Absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with
ISSUE: WON Yu Khe Thai, as owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with the driver danger to one passenger may appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to
another. Were the law to require a uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of
professional drivers by car owners who, by their very inadequacies, have real need of
HELD: NO
drivers' services, would be effectively proscribed.
The applicable provision is ART 2184 of the Civil Code