Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-1719, (January 23, 1907), 7 PHIL 359-3

    Uploaded by

    flor
    The plaintiff, a laborer employed by the defendant company, was injured while transporting iron rails from a barge to the company's yard. The plaintiff claimed there was only one hand car used, while the defendant provided evidence that two cars were used to transport the rails, which were piled lengthwise without side guards. As the cars passed over a depressed area of track, the rails slid off and injured the plaintiff's leg, which later required amputation. The court ruled that while the plaintiff was negligent in walking beside the car against instructions, the primary cause of the accident was the failure to properly secure the rails, making the defendant company liable for damages. Philippine law does not recognize employer exemption from liability for injuries caused by a fellow

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-1719, (January 23, 1907), 7 PHIL 359-3

    Uploaded by

    flor
    63 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, a laborer employed by the defendant company, was injured while transporting iron rails from a barge to the company's yard. The plaintiff claimed there was only one hand car used, while the defendant provided evidence that two cars were used to transport the rails, which were piled lengthwise without side guards. As the cars passed over a depressed area of track, the rails slid off and injured the plaintiff's leg, which later required amputation. The court ruled that while the plaintiff was negligent in walking beside the car against instructions, the primary cause of the accident was the failure to properly secure the rails, making the defendant company liable for damages. Philippine law does not recognize employer exemption from liability for injuries caused by a fellow

    Original Title

    14. Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-1719, (January 23, 1907], 7 PHIL 359-3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, a laborer employed by the defendant company, was injured while transporting iron rails from a barge to the company's yard. The plaintiff claimed there was only one hand car used, while the defendant provided evidence that two cars were used to transport the rails, which were piled lengthwise without side guards. As the cars passed over a depressed area of track, the rails slid off and injured the plaintiff's leg, which later required amputation. The court ruled that while the plaintiff was negligent in walking beside the car against instructions, the primary cause of the accident was the failure to properly secure the rails, making the defendant company liable for damages. Philippine law does not recognize employer exemption from liability for injuries caused by a fellow

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views2 pages

    Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-1719, (January 23, 1907), 7 PHIL 359-3

    Uploaded by

    flor
    The plaintiff, a laborer employed by the defendant company, was injured while transporting iron rails from a barge to the company's yard. The plaintiff claimed there was only one hand car used, while the defendant provided evidence that two cars were used to transport the rails, which were piled lengthwise without side guards. As the cars passed over a depressed area of track, the rails slid off and injured the plaintiff's leg, which later required amputation. The court ruled that while the plaintiff was negligent in walking beside the car against instructions, the primary cause of the accident was the failure to properly secure the rails, making the defendant company liable for damages. Philippine law does not recognize employer exemption from liability for injuries caused by a fellow

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    14. Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No.

    L-1719, (January 23, 1907], 7 PHIL


    359-3

    FACTS:
    he plaintiff, one of a gang of eight negro laborers in the employment of the defendant, was at work
    transporting iron rails from a barge in the harbor to the company's yard near the malecon in Manila.
    Plaintiff claims that but one hand car was used in this work. The defendant has proved that there
    were two immediately following one another, upon which were piled lengthwise seven rails, each
    weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails lay upon two crosspieces or sills secured to the
    cars, but without side pieces or guards to prevent them from slipping off. According to the testimony
    of the plaintiff, the men were either in the rear of the car or at its sides. According to that defendant,
    some of them were also in front, hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the
    track sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the plaintiff,
    breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the company is liable

    RULING:
    Yes. The negligence of the plaintiff, contributing to the accident, to what extent it existed in fact and
    what legal effect is to be given it. In two particulars is he charged with carelessness:
    First. That having noticed the depression in the track he continued his work; and
    Second.That he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards, either
    before or behind it.
    The Court ruled that His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing the slight depression
    of the rail was not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence, barring his recovery under the
    severe American rule. While the plaintiff and his witnesses swear that not only were they not
    forbidden to proceed in this way, but were expressly directed by the foreman to do so, both the
    officers of the company and three of the workmen testify that there was a general prohibition
    frequently made known to all the gang against walking by the side of the car, and the foreman swears
    that he repeated the prohibition before the starting of this particular load. On this contradiction of
    proof we think that the preponderance is in favor of the defendant's contention to the extent of the
    general order being made known to the workmen. If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing
    himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as its primary
    cause.
    Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without which
    there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it, independent of it,
    but contributing under review was the displacement of the crosspiece or the failure to replace it. this
    produced the event giving occasion for damages — that is, the sinking of the track and the sliding of
    the iron rails.

    1. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. — In order to enforce the liability of an employer for
    injuries to his employee, it is not necessary that a criminal action be first prosecuted against the
    employer or his representative primarily chargeable with the accident. No criminal proceeding
    having been taken, the civil action may proceed to judgment.

    2. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO WORKMEN. — The responsibility of an employer to his


    employee of a fellow-servant of the employee injured, is not adopted in Philippine jurisprudence.

    3. FELLOW-SERVANT RULE. — Sua cuique culpa nocet. The doctrine known as the "Fellow-
    servant rule," exonerating the employer where the injury was incurred through the negligence of a
    fellow-servant of the employee injured, is not adopted in Philippine jurisprudence.

    You might also like