Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.
GR No. 4977. March 22, 1910

FACTS:
- An action to recover damages for the loss of an eye and other injuries instituted by David Taylor, a minor, by his
father, his nearest relative.
- The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the operation of a street railway and electric light system in the
city of Manila. Its power plant is situated at the eastern end of a small island in the Pasig River, known as Isla del
Provisor. The power plant may be reached by boat or by crossing a footbridge, impassable for vehicles, at the
westerly end of the vehicle.
- David Taylor, 15 years of age, with a boy named Manuel Claparols, about 12 years of age, crossed the
footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of visiting Murphy, an employee of MERLC.
- Finding on inquiry that Murphy was not in his quarters, the boys spent some time in wandering about the
companys premises. They found 20 or 30 brass fulminating caps scattered on the ground. These caps are
approximately of the size and appearance of small pistol cartridges and each has attached to it two long thin wires
by means of which it may be discharged by the use of electricity. They are intended for use in the explosion of
blasting charges of dynamite, and have in themselves a considerable explosive power.
- Afterwards, the boys picked up all they can find and carried them home.
- The boys met a little girl named Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and all three went to the home of Manuel.
The boys made several experiments with the caps. They opened one of the caps with a knife, and finding it was
filled with yellowish substance, they got matches, and David held the cap while Manuel applied a lighted match
to the contents. An explosion followed, causing more or less injuries to all three.
- Jessie received a slight cut in the neck. Manuel had his hand burned and wounded, and David was struck, in the
face by several particles of the metal capsule, one of which injured his right eye to such an extent as to necessitate
its removal by the surgeons who were called in to care for his wounds.
- Hence this action for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. is liable for damages.
RULING:
- Not Liable.
- The entry of the plaintiff upon the defendants property without defendants express invitation would not have
relieved defendant from responsibility for injuries incurred there by plaintiff, without other fault on his part, if
such injury were attributable to the negligence of the defendant, we are of the opinion that under all circumstances
of this case, the negligence of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate
cause of the injury received by the plaintiff, which therefore was not, properly speaking, attributable to the
negligence of the defendant. And on the other hand, we are satisfied that plaintiffs action in cutting open the
detonating cap and putting a match to its contents was the proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant
injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff, and that the defendant, therefore is not civilly responsible for the injuries thus
injured.
- No fault which would relieve defendant of responsibility for injuries resulting from its negligence can be
attributed to the plaintiff, a well-grown boy of 15 years of age, because of his entry upon defendants unenclosed
premises without express permission or invitation; but it is a wholly different question, whether such a youth can
be said to have been free from fault when he wilfully and deliberately cut open the detonating cap, and placed a
match to the contents, knowing, as he undoubtedly did, that his action would result in an explosion.
- In the case at bar, plaintiff at the time of the accident was a well-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally
and physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as
a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the record discloses throughout that he was
exceptionally well qualified to take care of himself. The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that, despite
his denials on the witness stand, he well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was amusing
himself. The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion, as described by the little
girl who was present, admit of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity,
followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success of his endeavors brought
about by the application of a match to the contents of the caps, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor
can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous, in view
of the fact that the little girl, 9 years of age, who was within him at the time when he put the match to the contents
of the cap, became frightened and ran away.
-
True, he may not have known and probably did not know the precise nature of the explosion which might be
expected from the ignition of the contents of the cap, and of course he did not anticipate the resultant injuries
which he incurred; but he well knew that a more or less dangerous explosion might be expected from his act, and
yet he wilfully, recklessly, and knowingly produced the explosion. It would be going far to say that "according to
his maturity and capacity" he exercised such and "care and caution" as might reasonably be required of him, or
that defendant or anyone else should be held civilly responsible for injuries incurred by him under such
circumstances.
The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequences of his own acts, so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise
due care and precaution in the commission of such acts; and indeed it would be impracticable and perhaps
impossible so to do, for in the very nature of things the question of negligence necessarily depends on the ability
of the minor to understand the character of his own acts and their consequences; and the age at which a minor can
be said to have such ability will necessarily depends of his own acts and their consequences; and at the age at
which a minor can be said to have such ability will necessarily vary in accordance with the varying nature of the
infinite variety of acts which may be done by him. But some idea of the presumed capacity of infants under the
laws in force in these Islands may be gathered from an examination of the varying ages fixed by our laws at which
minors are conclusively presumed to be capable of exercising certain rights and incurring certain responsibilities,
though it cannot be said that these provisions of law are of much practical assistance in cases such as that at bar,
except so far as they illustrate the rule that the capacity of a minor to become responsible for his own acts varies
with the varying circumstances of each case.
We are satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had sufficient capacity and understanding to be sensible of the
danger to which he exposed himself when he put the match to the contents of the cap; that he was sui juris in the
sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of
that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act; and that
the injury incurred by him must be held to have been the direct and immediate result of his own willful and
reckless act, so that while it may be true that these injuries would not have been incurred but for the negligence
act of the defendant in leaving the caps exposed on its premises, nevertheless plaintiff's own act was the
proximate and principal cause of the accident which inflicted the injury.

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

GR No. 4977. March 22, 1910

You might also like