Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Necesito, Et Al. v. Paras, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Workman
    1) Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito were passengers on a Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines truck that crashed into a creek, killing Garces and injuring Necesito. 2) Lawsuits totaling over P85,000 were filed against the carrier for damages. The carrier claimed the accident was due to engine trouble beyond their control. 3) The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding the accident was due to a fractured steering knuckle that couldn't have been foreseen. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the carrier was liable, as carriers must ensure passenger safety through diligent inspection and testing of equipment, and the manufacturer is considered the carrier's agent. Carriers

    Copyright:

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

    Necesito, Et Al. v. Paras, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Workman
    55 views2 pages
    1) Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito were passengers on a Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines truck that crashed into a creek, killing Garces and injuring Necesito. 2) Lawsuits totaling over P85,000 were filed against the carrier for damages. The carrier claimed the accident was due to engine trouble beyond their control. 3) The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding the accident was due to a fractured steering knuckle that couldn't have been foreseen. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the carrier was liable, as carriers must ensure passenger safety through diligent inspection and testing of equipment, and the manufacturer is considered the carrier's agent. Carriers

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito were passengers on a Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines truck that crashed into a creek, killing Garces and injuring Necesito. 2) Lawsuits totaling over P85,000 were filed against the carrier for damages. The carrier claimed the accident was due to engine trouble beyond their control. 3) The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding the accident was due to a fractured steering knuckle that couldn't have been foreseen. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the carrier was liable, as carriers must ensure passenger safety through diligent inspection and testing of equipment, and the manufacturer is considered the carrier's agent. Carriers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    Necesito, Et Al. v. Paras, Et Al.

    Uploaded by

    Courtney Workman
    1) Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito were passengers on a Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines truck that crashed into a creek, killing Garces and injuring Necesito. 2) Lawsuits totaling over P85,000 were filed against the carrier for damages. The carrier claimed the accident was due to engine trouble beyond their control. 3) The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding the accident was due to a fractured steering knuckle that couldn't have been foreseen. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the carrier was liable, as carriers must ensure passenger safety through diligent inspection and testing of equipment, and the manufacturer is considered the carrier's agent. Carriers

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Necesito, et al. v. Paras, et al.

    G.R. No. L-10605, June 30, 1958


    FACTS:
    Severina Garces and her son Precillano Necesito boarded a passenger
    truck of the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines driven by Francisco Bandonell. The
    truck entered a wooden bridge, but the front wheels swerved to the right.
    The driver lost control, and after wrecking the bridge's wooden rails, the
    truck fell on its right side into a creek where water was breast deep. Garces
    died due to drowning while Necesito suffered injuries.
    Two actions for damages and attorney's fees totalling over P85,000
    were filed with the Tarlac CFI against the carrier. The carrier pleaded that the
    accident was due to "engine or mechanical trouble" independent or beyond
    the control of the defendants or of the driver Bandonell.
    RTCs RULING:
    The trial court found that the bus was proceeding slowly due to the bad
    condition of the road and that accident was due to the fracture of the trucks
    right steering knuckle which could not be known by the carrier. Thus, it
    dismissed the complaints holding that the accident was exclusively due to
    fortuitous events.
    RELATED LAW:
    Civil Code: ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the
    passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
    utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for the all the
    circumstances.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of the
    steering knuckle, and whether the evidence discloses that in regard thereto
    the carrier exercised the diligence required by law.
    SCs RULING:
    Yes. While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the passengers,
    a passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury
    resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer,
    whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the
    carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances
    was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the
    necessary tests. In this connection, the manufacturer of the defective
    appliance is considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the good repute
    of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from liability. The rationale of
    the carriers liability is the fact that the passenger has no privity with the
    manufacturer of the defective equipment; hence, he has no remedy against
    him, while the carrier usually has. Carriers liability rests upon negligence, his

    failure to exercise the "utmost" degree of diligence that the law requires, and
    in case of a passenger's death or injury the carrier bears the burden of
    satisfying the court that he has duly discharged the duty of prudence
    required.

    You might also like