Scribd
Upload
153 views1 page

Del Prado vs. Manila Electric

The plaintiff attempted to board the defendant's streetcar at a non-designated stop. As the plaintiff placed his foot on the platform, the motorman accelerated the car before the plaintiff was secure, causing him to fall and have his foot crushed. The court held the motorman was negligent for accelerating before the plaintiff was secure. In cases of breach of contract for carriage, plaintiffs do not need to prove fault or negligence of the defendant - the burden is on the defendant to show lack of fault or negligence.

Uploaded by

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

Del Prado vs. Manila Electric

The plaintiff attempted to board the defendant's streetcar at a non-designated stop. As the plaintiff placed his foot on the platform, the motorman accelerated the car before the plaintiff was secure, causing him to fall and have his foot crushed. The court held the motorman was negligent for accelerating before the plaintiff was secure. In cases of breach of contract for carriage, plaintiffs do not need to prove fault or negligence of the defendant - the burden is on the defendant to show lack of fault or negligence.

Uploaded by

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

Del Prado vs.

Manila Electric
52 Phil. 900 (source)
Facts: The plaintiff attempted to board a streetcar belonging to the defendant a
t a point not intended for stopping. He raised his hand as an indication to the
motorman of his desire to board the car and in response to which the motorman ea
sed up a little without stopping. The plaintiff held the handpost with his left
hand and placed his left foot upon the platform. Before plaintiff s position had h
owever become secure, the motorman applied the power and the car gave a slight l
urch forward. The sudden impulse to the car caused the plaintiff s foot to slip an
d he fell to the ground with the result that his right foot was caught and crush
ed by the moving car.
Held: The motorman was negligent in accelerating the speed of the street-car befo
re the position of the intending passenger in the car had become secure.
The relation between a carrier of passengers for hire and its patrons is of a con
tractual nature; and the failure to use due care in conveying its passengers saf
ely is a breach of obligation under Article 1101 and related provisions.
The defense indicated in the last paragraph of Article 1903 of the Civil
Code is not available to the master when his servant is guilty of a breach of du
ty under Article 1101 and related provisions of said Code.
To the same effect are the rulings of the Supreme Court in Manila Railroad Co. v
s. Compania Trans-Atlantica, 38 Phil. 875 and Mercado vs. Lira, 3 SCRA 124, 131)
.
Same; Proof of defendant s fault or negligence not necessary in cases of breach of
contract of carriage.
In cases of breach of contract of carriage it is not necessary for the plaintiff
to prove that the defendant or his employees are guilty of fault or negligence
in order to recover. The burden is on the part of the defendant to show that his
failure to comply with the contract is not due to his fault or negligence or th
at of his employee. (See Mercado v. Lira, 3 SCRA 124, 131).

You might also like