1. PICART vs. SMITH, JR.; G.R. No.

L-12219; March 15, 1918 the car and the limb was broken. The horse fell and its rider was
thrown off with some violence. As a result of its injuries the horse
FACTS: On the Carlatan Bridge in La Union. Picart was riding on his died. The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary
pony over said bridge. Before he had gotten half way across, Smith unconsciousness and required medical attention for several days.
approached from the opposite direction in an automobile. As the
defendant neared the bridge he saw a horseman on it and blew his From a judgment of the CFI of La Union absolving Smith from liability
horn to give warning of his approach. He continued his course and Picart has appealed.
after he had taken the bridge he gave two more successive blasts, as
it appeared to him that the man on horseback before him was not ISSUE: WON Smith was guilty of negligence such as gives rise to a
observing the rule of the road. civil obligation to repair the damage done
Picart saw the automobile coming and heard the warning signals. HELD: the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and
However, being perturbed by the novelty of the apparition or the judgment is here rendered that the Picart recover of Smith damages
rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up against the YES
railing on the right side of the bridge instead of going to the left. He
says that the reason he did this was that he thought he did not have The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
sufficient time to get over to the other side. As the automobile particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
approached, Smith guided it toward his left, that being the proper side the alleged negligent act use that person would have used in the
of the road for the machine. In so doing the defendant assumed that same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The existence
the horseman would move to the other side. Seeing that the pony was of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the
apparently quiet, the defendant, instead of veering to the right while personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law
yet some distance away or slowing down, continued to approach considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
directly toward the horse without diminution of speed. When he had man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by
gotten quite near, there being then no possibility of the horse getting that. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a
across to the other side, the defendant quickly turned his car prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined
sufficiently to the right to escape hitting the horse; but in so doing the in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in
automobile passed in such close proximity to the animal that it the particular case.
became frightened and turned its body across the bridge, got hit by
1
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of
as a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under these circumstances the
actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable law is that the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the suggestion born of this impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other
Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining the party.
existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would 2. Civil Aeronautics Board vs. CA; G.R. No. L-51806, November
have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently 8, 1988
probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its
consequences.
FACTS: Ernest E. Simke, a naturalized Filipino citizen, was Honorary
Consul General of Israel in the Philippines. He went to Manila
Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the present case
International Airport to meet his future son-in-law. As the plane was
we think that negligence is clearly established. A prudent man, placed
landing, he and his companions went to the viewing deck to watch the
in the position of the defendant, would in our opinion, have recognized
arrival of the plane. While walking, Simke slipped on an elevation 4
that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and
inches high and fell on his back, breaking his thigh bone in the
would therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as
process. He underwent a 3-hour operation and after recovery he filed
reasonable consequence of that course. Under these circumstances
a claim for damages against the Civil Aeronautics Administration
the law imposed on the Smith the duty to guard against the
(CAA), which was the government entity in charge of the airport.
threatened harm.

ISSUE: Whether or not CAA was negligent

It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free from fault,
for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the
HELD: CAA contended that the elevation in question "had a legitimate
wrong side of the road. But as we have already stated, Smith was
purpose for being on the terrace and was never intended to trip down
also negligent; and in such case the problem always is to discover
people and injure them. It was there for no other purpose but to drain
which agent is immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted
water on the floor area of the terrace."
that the negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous,
2
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
 Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918):
But upon ocular inspection by the trial court, it was found that the
terrace was in poor condition. Under RA 776, the CAA is charged with The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
the duty of planning, designing, constructing, equipping, expanding, particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing
maintenance...etc. of the Manila International Airport. the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same situation? If
Responsibility of CAA not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
The SC held that pursuant to Art. 1173, "the fault or negligence of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of the
obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the
the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law
the person, of the time, and of the place." Here, the obligation of the considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
CAA in maintaining the viewing deck, a facility open to the public, man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by
requires that CAA insure the safety of the viewers using it. As these that.
people come to look to where the planes and the incoming
passengers are and not to look down on the floor or pavement of the The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent
viewing deck, the CAA should have thus made sure that no man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the
dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the floor of the deck to light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the
prevent any undue harm to the public. particular case. Abstract speculations cannot be here of much value
but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men-overn their
Contributory Negligence conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to
them. They are not, and are not supposed to be omniscient of the
Under Art. 2179, contributory negligence contemplates a negligent act future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when there is
or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent
proximate cause of his injury, CONTRIBUTED to his own damage. man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
The Court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, course actually pursued' If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
considering the following test formulated in the early case of Picart v. precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm,
3
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is In the decision appealed from, the lower court, after summarizing the
always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.... [Picart v. evidence, concluded that the deceased in his eagerness to beat, so
Smith, supra, p. 813] to speak, the oncoming locomotive, took the risk and attempted to
reach the other side, but unfortunately he became the victim of his
The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the case before the own miscalculation.
lower court, could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would
befall him, considering the attendant factual circumstances. Even if The negligence imputed to MRC was thus ruled out by the lower
the private respondent had been looking where he was going, the court, satisfactory proof to that effect, in its opinion, being lacking.
step in question could not easily be noticed because of its Hence this appeal direct to us, the amount sought in the concept of
construction. damages reaching the sum of P282,065.40.

"WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Petition for review on ISSUE: WON the lower courts decision is erroneous
certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- HELD: The decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint, is
G.R. No. 51172-R is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." affirmed.
NO

3. PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD

The lower court judgment has in its favor the presumption of
COMPANY; G.R. No. L-21291; March 28, 1969
correctness. It is entitled to great respect. In the absence of
compelling reasons, [the factual] determination is best left to the trial
FACTS: Ralph Corliss Jr. was an air police of the Clark Air Force
judge why had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and
Base. The jeep he was driving while accompanied with a P.C. soldier,
observing their demeanor on the witness stand.
collided with a locomotive of Manila Railroad Company (MRC) close
But more importantly, this action is predicated on negligence, the Civil
to midnight at the railroad crossing in Balibago, Angeles, Pampanga,
Code making clear that whoever by act or omission causes damage
in front of the Clark Air Force Base. Corliss Jr. died of serious burns at
to another, there being negligence, is under obligation to pay for the
the hospital the next day, while the soldier sustained serious physical
damage done. Unless it could be satisfactorily shown, therefore, that
injuries and burns.
MRC was guilty of negligence then it could not be held liable. The
crucial question, therefore, is the existence of negligence.
4
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
Negligence was defined by us in two 1912 decisions, United States v. Finally, each and every case on questions of negligence is to be
Juanillo and United States v. Barias. Cooley formulation was quoted decided in accordance with the peculiar circumstances that present
with approval in both the Juanillo and Barias decisions. Thus: Judge themselves. There can be no hard and fast rule. There must be that
Cooley in his work on Torts (3d ed.), Sec. 1324, defines negligence to observance of that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
be: situation demands.

The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another 4. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad Company
person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
Facts: David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin
circumstance justly demand whereby such other person suffers
boy at sea; he was also able to learn some principles of mechanical
injury.
engineering and mechanical drawing from his dads office (his dad
was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical
There was likewise a reliance on Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co. draftsman earning P2.50 a day all said, Taylor was mature well
Thus: beyond his age.

One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of
Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a
Manila Electric power plant where they found 20-30 blasting caps
relative or comparative, not an absolute term and its application
which they took home. In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and
experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then he
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where the
lighted it using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps
danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to
causing severe injuries to his companion and to Taylor losing one
observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
eye.

To repeat, by such a test, no negligence could be imputed to MRC Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the

and the action of Corliss must necessarily fail. The facts being what caps exposed to children, they are liable for damages due to the

they are, compel the conclusion that the liability sought to be fastened companys negligence.

on MRC had not arisen. ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages.

HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:

5
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
(1) Damages to the plaintiff. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to
anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous.
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or
some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty. The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to
him through his own fault, and that he cannot demand reparation
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and
therefor from another.
the damage.

In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in
disposing off the caps which they used for the power plant, and that
5. YLARDE VS. AQUINO
said caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the causal connection
between the companys negligence and the injuries sustained by FACTS: Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the
Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in
explosion of the caps as he even, in various experiments and in Tayug, Pangasinan. Private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a
multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that teacher therein. At that time, the school was fittered with several
led to the explosion and hence the injuries. concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school shop that was
Taylor at the time of the accident was well-grown youth of 15, more destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the huge stones were
mature both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age; serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of
he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as a Sergio Banez started burying them one by one as early as 1962. In
mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the fact, he was able to bury ten of these blocks all by himself.

record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to

Deciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo Aquino
take care. The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he
gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after class
well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was
dismissal. Being their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig
amusing himself. The series of experiments made by him in his
beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole wherein the
attempt to produce an explosion admit of no other explanation. His
stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The following day,
attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity, followed by his
also after classes, private respondent Aquino called four of the
efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success of
original eighteen pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils
his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the
Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito
contents of the cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about.
6
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one meter and forty centimeters The petitioner contends that Aquino shall be held liable under Art.
deep. At this point, private respondent Aquino alone continued digging 2176 of the NCC while Soriano shall be held liable under Art. 2180.
while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
was brought about by the digging.
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
block, private respondent Aquino and his four pupils got out of the
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
hole. Then, said private respondent left the children to level the loose
soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about
Art. 2180 states that:
thirty meters away. Private respondent wanted to borrow from Banez
the key to the school workroom where he could get some rope. Before
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
leaving. , private respondent Aquino allegedly told the children "not to
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
touch the stone."
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
A few minutes after private respondent Aquino left, three of the four
kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made
Then, without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on responsible for the death of the child Ylarde, he being the head of
top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. Also,
opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging.
excavation on time but unfortunately fo Ylarde, the concrete block
caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall in a The ruling in this case is also based on Amadora vs. Court of
standing position. As a result, Ylarde sustained injuries and days Appeals, wherein the Court thoroughly discussed the doctrine
later, he died. that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and
not the head of an academic school who should be answerable for
ISSUE: WON Aquino (teacher-in-charge) and Soriano (school torts committed by their students. This Court went on to say that in
principal) can be held liable for NEGLIGENCE. a school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who

RULING: Only respondent Aquino can be held liable. can be held liable.

7
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
 serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an
GR: teachers shall be liable for the acts of their excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher
students who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure
XPN: where the school is technical in nature, in which that the children are protected from all harm in his company.
case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable

ALSO NOTE: The degree of care required to be exercised must vary

In this case, Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when
with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. A
he:
minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but
(1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers
his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of
(2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after
persons of his age and experience. The standard of conduct to which
they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying
a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care
nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil
ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion,
who by chance may go to the perilous area
knowledge and experience under the same or similar
(3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when
circumstances. Bearing this in mind, We cannot charge the child
it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling
Ylarde with reckless imprudence.
(4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the
children's safety
(5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously 6. JARCO MARKETING CORP. VS. CA
attractive nuisance.
FACTS: Petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation is the owner of
Syvels Department Store, Makati City. Private respondents are
The negligent act of Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a
spouses and the parents of Zhieneth Aguilar (ZHIENETH). One
dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of
day, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH were at the 2nd floor of Syvels
the child Ylarde. A reasonably prudent person would have
Department Store, Makati City. CRISELDA was signing her credit
foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site, and more so,
card slip at the payment and verification counter when she felt a
leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an accident.
sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind
An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple
her. She then beheld her daughter ZHIENETH on the floor,
warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the
8
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
her young body pinned by the bulk of the stores gift-
wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying and ISSUE: WON Jarco Marketing is NEGLIGENT or it was just an
screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ACCIDENT.
ask the assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and
RULING: JARCO MARKETING IS NEGLIGENT.
retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor.
In ruling this case, the court stated the difference between
ZHIENETH, a six year old girl was quickly rushed to the Makati
negligence and accident. Also, it uses the ruling in Picart vs.
Medical Center where she was operated on. The next day
Smith.
ZHIENETH lost her speech and thereafter communicated with
CRISELDA by writing on a magic slate. The injuries she An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or

sustained took their toil on her young body. She died fourteen negligence attaches to the defendant. It is a fortuitous

(14) days after the accident. circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without
any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through
The cause of her death was attributed to the injuries she sustained.
human agency, an event which under the circumstances is
After the burial of their daughter, Criselda demanded upon Jarco
unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
Marketing the reimbursement of the hospitalization, medical bills and
wake and funeral expenses which they had incurred. But, they On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do something

refused to pay. Criselda filed a complaint for damages. which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the

TC: dismissed the complaint and counterclaim and ruled that the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would

proximate cause of the fall of the counter on Zhieneth was her act of not do. Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of

clinging to it. the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such

CA: favored Criselda judgment. It found that petitioners were other person suffers injury.

negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter. Two former Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one
employees of petitioners had already previously brought to the cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when the person
attention of the management the danger the counter could cause. But concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not caused by
the latter ignored their concern.

9
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
fault of any person and which could not have been prevented by Francisco CBCIs diesel fuel. Francisco checked his ID and therefore
any means suggested by common prudence. agreed to purchase the fuel under the 3 conditions that:

The test in determining the existence of negligence is enunciated 1) Petron Cor should deliver such fuel at his business add w/c
in the landmark case of Picart v. Smith, thus: Did the defendant should be properly indicated in Petrons inovoice;
in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
2) the delivery tank be sealed and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. 3) that Basca should issue a separate receipt to Francisco.

In this case, it is proven that JARCO is guilty of negligence when All of which were complied with in the 17 deliveries of fuel made to
the court give credence to the testimony of one of the witness Francisco. One day, CBCI sent a letter demanding payment for such
when the child was rushed to the hospital. ZHIENETH, when fuel that have been previously paid by CBCI which Francisco rejected.
asked what happened tells the witness that she does not come CBCI claims that Petron sold fuel to the former but were delivered
near the counter and the counter just fell on her. Also, instead to Francisco. The latter should have known that since only
petitioners were already informed of the danger posed by the Petron, Caltex and Shell are authorized to sell and distribute
unstable counter but neither of them initiated any concrete action petroleum products, the fuel from Basca came from illegal acts.
to remedy the situation nor ensure the safety of the store
Petitioner alleged that he was blind and asked his son to check the ID
employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent
of Basca where the latter said that CBCI was in immediate need of
man would have done. Clearly, summing all the facts gathered,
cash for salary of daily paid workers and petty cash, thus the sale
the court found that petitioner JARCO Marketing is guilty of
but they enjoyed a big credit line with Petron. He therefore acquired
Negligence.
the diesel in good faith and for value.

TC: ruled in favor of petitioner on the premise that he was a buyer in

7. FRANCISCO VS. CBCI good faith and CBCI should sue Basca for he was authorized
to receive payment for the fuel.
FACTS: Francisco was the owner and manager of a Caltex Station
in Rizal. A certain Basca and hiscompanions came to his station and CA: reversed the ruling of TC .The sale by Basca was his personal
represented themselves as CBCI employees and offered to sell to act and does not bind CBCI. Petitioner should have verified with CBCI
if Basca had authority considering he had doubts to his authority.
10
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
Moreover, the receipts were only improvised since it was on a plain Therefore, CBCI was unlawfully deprived of its property and it may
bond paper with no letterhead of CBCI. Petitioner cant invoke recover from Francisco even if he pleads good faith.
estoppel because he is at fault for choosing to ignore the tell-tale
signs of petroleum diversion and not exercising prudence.
8. UNITED STATES VS. BONIFACIO
ISSUE: WON Francisco, in not exercising the due diligence required
as a blind person can be held liable.
FACTS: Bonifacio was an engineer and was conducting the heavy
RULING: YES. Francisco is liable of Negligence
freight train one morning n Batangas. The train had just rounded
a curve when Bonifacio saw a man (Eligio Castillo) walking along the
Standard of conduct is the level of expected conduct that is required railroad track. The former immediately blew his whistle twice;
by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the unknown to him, Castillo was a deaf-mute. Noticing that Castillo did
circumstances of the person, time and place. The most common not step aside from the track, Bonifacio tried to slow down the engine,
standard of conduct is that of a good father of a family or that of a but did not succeed in stopping in time to avoid running down
reasonably prudent person. To determine the diligence which must be the pedestrian, who, about that time, turned and attempted to cross
required of all persons, we use as basis the abstract average the track. Bonifacio was charged in the trial court with homicide
standard corresponding to a normal orderly person. committed with reckless negligence and he was convicted of homicide
committed with simple negligence.
The required diligence of any physically disabled person, is the same
degree of care that a reasonable careful person who was the same ISSUE: WON Bonifacio is liable for the death of Castillo.
physical disability would use. Such handicaps are treated as part of
RULING: He is not liable. There is no obligation on an engine driver to
the circumstances under which a reasonable person must
stop, or even to slow down his engine, when he sees an
act. HOWEVER, Francisco has been in the business for 15 years and
adult pedestrian standing or walking on or near the track, unless there
his blindness was not a hindrance for him to transact business until
is something in the appearance or conduct of the person on foot
this time. He failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected of a
which would cause a prudent man to anticipate the possibility that
person who is blind. Francisco did not acquire any title over the diesel
such person could not, or would not avoid the possibility of danger
fuel since CBCI did not perform any act to authorize Basca to sell.
by stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that may properly be required of an
engine driver under such circumstances is that he give warning of his
11
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.
approach, by blowing his whistle or ringing his bell until he is assured
that the attention of the pedestrian has been attracted to the
oncoming train. An engine driver may fairly assume that all persons
walking or standing on or near the railroad track, except children of
tender years, are aware of the danger to which they are exposed; and
that they will take reasonable precautions to avoid accident, by
looking and listening for the approach of trains, and stepping out of
the way of danger when their attention is directed to an oncoming
train. Any other rule would render it impracticable to operate railroads
so as to secure the expeditious transportation of passengers and
freight which the public interest demands. Bonifacio was without fault;
and that the accident must be attributed wholly to the reckless
negligence of the deaf-mute, in walking on the track without taking the
necessary precautions to avoid danger from a train approaching him
from behind.

12
AGUINALDO, DINO. LAPEZ, MAGUERA, MORALES C., MORALES I.