Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Yobido v. Court of Appeals - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    A bus owned by Yobido experienced a tire blowout that caused it to fall into a ravine, resulting in the death of a passenger named Tito Tumboy and injuries to others. Yobido claimed it was not liable due to the tire blowout being a fortuitous, unforeseeable event. However, the court ruled Yobido was negligent and did not prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, as the bus was allegedly traveling too fast given the wet, winding road conditions. The tire blowout was also not considered a true fortuitous event. Therefore, Yobido failed to overcome the presumption of carrier liability.

    Copyright:

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

    Yobido v. Court of Appeals - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    57 views1 page
    A bus owned by Yobido experienced a tire blowout that caused it to fall into a ravine, resulting in the death of a passenger named Tito Tumboy and injuries to others. Yobido claimed it was not liable due to the tire blowout being a fortuitous, unforeseeable event. However, the court ruled Yobido was negligent and did not prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, as the bus was allegedly traveling too fast given the wet, winding road conditions. The tire blowout was also not considered a true fortuitous event. Therefore, Yobido failed to overcome the presumption of carrier liability.

    Original Title

    Yobido v. Court of Appeals- Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A bus owned by Yobido experienced a tire blowout that caused it to fall into a ravine, resulting in the death of a passenger named Tito Tumboy and injuries to others. Yobido claimed it was not liable due to the tire blowout being a fortuitous, unforeseeable event. However, the court ruled Yobido was negligent and did not prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, as the bus was allegedly traveling too fast given the wet, winding road conditions. The tire blowout was also not considered a true fortuitous event. Therefore, Yobido failed to overcome the presumption of carrier liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    Yobido v. Court of Appeals - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    A bus owned by Yobido experienced a tire blowout that caused it to fall into a ravine, resulting in the death of a passenger named Tito Tumboy and injuries to others. Yobido claimed it was not liable due to the tire blowout being a fortuitous, unforeseeable event. However, the court ruled Yobido was negligent and did not prove it exercised extraordinary diligence, as the bus was allegedly traveling too fast given the wet, winding road conditions. The tire blowout was also not considered a true fortuitous event. Therefore, Yobido failed to overcome the presumption of carrier liability.

    Copyright:

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

    Yobido v.

    Court of Appeals
    281 SCRA 1 (1997)

    CASE DIGEST

    FACTS:

    Spouses Tito and Leny Tumboy and their minor children named Ardee and
    Jasmin boarded a Yobido Liner bus. The left front tire of the bus exploded.
    The bus fell into a ravine which resulted in the death of 28-year-old Tumboy
    and physical injuries to other passengers.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the Yobido (bus-owner) be exempt from liability because the
    tire blowout was no more than a fortuitous event that could not have
    foreseen.

    Ruling:

    No. Under the circumstances of the present case, the explosion of the new
    tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. It is settled that an accident
    caused either by defects in the automobile or through the negligence of its
    driver is not a caso fortuito that would exempt the carrier from liability for
    damages.

    A common carrier may not be absolved from liability in case of force majeure
    or fortuitous event alone. The common carrier must still prove that it was not
    negligent in causing the death or injury resulting from an accident. In culpa
    contractual, once a passenger dies or injured, the carrier is presumed to
    have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption may only
    be overcome by evidence that the carrier had observed extraordinary
    diligence.

    The Yobido failed to rebut the testimony of Leny Tumboy that the bus was
    running so fast that she cautioned the driver to slow down. These
    contradictory facts must, be resolved in favor of liability in view of the
    presumption of negligence of the carrier in the law. Coupled with this is the
    established condition of the road tough, winding and wet due to rain. It was
    incumbent upon the defense to establish that it took precautionary measures
    considering partially dangerous condition of the road. Yobido failed to
    discharge its duty to overthrow the presumption of negligence with clear and
    convincing evidence.

    You might also like