Scribd
Upload
489 views1 page

Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768 Facts

Jose Cangco was injured when he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons left on the train platform by Manila Railroad Company employees as he was disembarking at his regular stop. He sued the company for negligence. The Supreme Court ruled that Cangco was not contributorily negligent, as the area was familiar to him and it was dim at the time due to the late hour. While Cangco earned only $25 per month as a clerk, he was permanently disabled by the injuries. The court awarded him $2,500 for damages and $790.25 for medical expenses.

Uploaded by

Jennifer Oceña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
489 views1 page

Cangco v. MRR, 38 Phil 768 Facts

Jose Cangco was injured when he accidentally stepped on a sack of watermelons left on the train platform by Manila Railroad Company employees as he was disembarking at his regular stop. He sued the company for negligence. The Supreme Court ruled that Cangco was not contributorily negligent, as the area was familiar to him and it was dim at the time due to the late hour. While Cangco earned only $25 per month as a clerk, he was permanently disabled by the injuries. The court awarded him $2,500 for damages and $790.25 for medical expenses.

Uploaded by

Jennifer Oceña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Cangco v.

MRR, 38 Phil 768

FACTS:
On January 20, 1915, Jose Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Company where he was an employee. As the train drew
near to his destination, he arose from his seat. When he was about to alight from the train, Cangco accidentally stepped on a sack
of watermelons which he failed to notice because it was already 7:00pm and it was dim when it happened. As a result, he slipped
and fell violently on the platform. His right arm was badly crushed and lacerated which was eventually amputated.

Cangco sued Manila Railroad Company on the ground of negligence of its employees placing the sacks of melons upon the platform
and in leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the company’s trains. The company’s
defense was that granting that its employees were negligent in placing an obstruction upon the platform, the direct and proximate
cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff was his own contributing negligence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a contributing negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

RULING:
No. 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.

The place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and off the train at the 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 Supreme Court’s conclusion was 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.

At the time of the accident, was earning P25 a month as a copyist clerk, and that the injuries he has suffered have permanently
disabled him from continuing that employment. Defendant has not shown that any other gainful occupation is open to plaintiff. His
expectancy of life, according to the standard mortality tables, is approximately thirty-three years. We are of the opinion that a fair
compensation for the damage suffered by him for his permanent disability is the sum of P2,500, and that he is also entitled to
recover of defendant the additional sum of P790.25 for medical attention, hospital services, and other incidental expenditures
connected with the treatment of his injuries.

You might also like