G.R. No.

L-12191 October 14, 1918

JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendant-appellee.
Ramon Sotelo for appellant.
Kincaid & Hartigan for appellee.

FACTS:

On January 20, 1915, Jose Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Company where
he was an employee. Upon the occasion in question, the plaintiff arose from his seat in the
second class-car where he was riding and, making, his exit through the door, took his
position upon the steps of the coach, seizing the upright guardrail with his right hand for
support.

As the train slowed down another passenger, named Emilio Zuñiga, also an employee of
the railroad company, got off the same car, alighting safely at the point where the platform
begins to rise from the level of the ground. When the train had proceeded a little farther
the plaintiff Jose Cangco stepped off also, but one or both of his feet came in contact with
a sack of watermelons with the result that his feet slipped from under him and he fell
violently on the platform. His body at once rolled from the platform and was drawn under
the moving car, where his right arm was badly crushed and lacerated. It appears that after
the plaintiff alighted from the train the car moved forward possibly six meters before it
came to a full stop.

The accident occurred between 7 and 8 o'clock on a dark night, and as the railroad station
was lighted dimly by a single light located some distance away, objects on the platform
where the accident occurred were difficult to discern especially to a person emerging from
a lighted car.

The explanation of the presence of a sack of melons on the platform is found in the fact that
it was the customary season for harvesting these melons and a large lot had been brought
to the station for the shipment to the market.

The plaintiff was drawn from under the car in an unconscious condition, and it appeared
that the injuries which he had received were very serious. He was therefore brought at once
to a certain hospital in the city of Manila where an examination was made and his arm was
amputated. The result of this operation was unsatisfactory, and the plaintiff was then carried
to another hospital where a second operation was performed and the member was again
amputated higher up near the shoulder.

He instituted a proceeding against defendant company to recover damages, founding his

action upon the negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the
sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the
security of passenger alighting from the company's trains.
The trial court concluded that although negligence was attributable to the defendant by
reason of the fact that the sacks of melon were so placed as to obstruct passengers passing
to and from the cars, nevertheless, the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in
alighting from the coach and was therefore precluded from recovering.

Trial court ruled in favour of defendant company.

ISSUE: WON, Manila Railroad Co. should be held liable.

RULING:

Yes.

The Court held that it cannot be doubted that the employees of the railroad company were
guilty of negligence in piling the sacks on the platform in the manner above stated; that
their presence caused the plaintiff to fall as he alighted from the train; and that they
therefore constituted an effective legal cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It
necessarily follows that the defendant company is liable for the damage thereby occasioned
unless recovery is barred by the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. In
resolving this problem it is necessary that each of these conceptions of liability, to-wit, the
primary responsibility of the defendant company and the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff should be separately examined.

The railroad company's defense involves the assumption that even granting that the
negligent conduct of its servants in placing an obstruction upon the platform was a breach
of its contractual obligation to maintain safe means of approaching and leaving its trains,
the direct and proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributory
negligence in failing to wait until the train had come to a complete stop before alighting.
Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, if the accident was caused by plaintiff's own
negligence, no liability is imposed upon defendant's negligence and plaintiff's negligence
merely contributed to his injury, the damages should be apportioned. It is, therefore,
important to ascertain if defendant was in fact guilty of negligence.

It may be admitted that had plaintiff waited until the train had come to a full stop before
alighting, the particular injury suffered by him could not have occurred. Defendant
contends, and cites many authorities in support of the contention, that it is negligence per
se for a passenger to alight from a moving train.

However, the Court is not disposed to subscribe in this doctrine in its absolute form. The
Court is of the opinion that this proposition is too badly stated and is at variance with the
experience of every-day life. In this particular instance, that the train was barely moving
when plaintiff alighted is shown conclusively by the fact that it came to stop within six
meters from the place where he stepped from it. Thousands of person alight from trains
under these conditions every day of the year, and sustain no injury where the company has
kept its platform free from dangerous obstructions. There is no reason to believe that
plaintiff would have suffered any injury whatever in alighting as he did had it not
been for defendant's negligent failure to perform its duty to provide a safe
alighting place.
The only fact from which a conclusion can be drawn to the effect that plaintiff was guilty of
contributory negligence is that he stepped off the car without being able to discern clearly
the condition of the platform and while the train was yet slowly moving. In considering the
situation thus presented, it should not be overlooked that the plaintiff was ignorant of the
fact that the obstruction which was caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform
existed; and as the defendant was bound by reason of its duty as a public carrier to
afford to its passengers facilities for safe egress from its trains, the plaintiff had
a right to assume, in the absence of some circumstance to warn him to the
contrary, that the platform was clear. The place, as have already been stated, was dark,
or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the defendant in the
performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff; for if it were by any possibility concede
that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of them
adequately so that their presence would be revealed.

As pertinent to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in this
case the following circumstances are to be noted: The company's platform was constructed
upon a level higher than that of the roadbed and the surrounding ground. The distance from
the steps of the car to the spot where the alighting passenger would place his feet on the
platform was thus reduced, thereby decreasing the risk incident to stepping off. The nature
of the platform, constructed as it was of cement material, also assured to the passenger a
stable and even surface on which to alight. Furthermore, the plaintiff was possessed of the
vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while
the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. In
determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that
is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age, sex, and
physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the
safety of the passenger, and should be considered. Women, it has been observed, as
a general rule are less capable than men of alighting with safety under such conditions, as
the nature of their wearing apparel obstructs the free movement of the limbs. Again, it may
be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to
get on and off the train at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his
mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or
the character of the platform where he was alighting.

The Court concluded that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while
the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and
that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.

The Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and ruled in favour of herein plaintiff-
appellant.