Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Facts:
While the passenger bus is at full stop, and the victim Cudiamat
was already on the platform of the said bus, it suddenly made a
sudden jerk movement as the driver commenced to accelerate the
bus. Cudiamat fell off, the bus ran over him, resulting to his death.
Issue:
Whether or not the bus driver is negligent and liable for damages.
Ruling:
In Del Prado vs. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 900 (1929), it was held
that, “it becomes the duty of the driver and the conductor, every time
the bus stops, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing
the peril to a passenger while he was attempting to board the same.”
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
No, the truck driver’s negligence was NOT the proximate cause of
the death of Raynera.
Here, the direct cause of the accident was the negligence of the
victim. Traveling behind the truck, he had the responsibility of avoiding
bumping the vehicle in front of him. He was in control of the situation.
His motorcycle was equipped with headlights to enable him to see
what was in front of him. He was traversing the service road where the
prescribed speed limit was less than that in the highway.
05. Maranan vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L-22272, June 26, 1967
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Art. 1759 of the Civil Code provides that, “Common carriers are
liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence
or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may
have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the
orders of the common carriers.”
Here, it is the carrier's strict obligation to select its drivers and similar
employees with due regard not only to their technical competence
and physical ability, but also, no less important, to their total
personality, including their patterns of behavior, moral fibers, and
social attitude.
06. LRTA vs. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
In Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 423, it was
held that, “The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely
using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for
all circumstances.”