Scribd
Upload
159 views1 page

Sps Parena v. Sps. Zarate Case Digest

The Parenas operated a school bus service that transported students for a fee. On the day of the incident, the driver took a shortcut on a narrow path that crossed railroad tracks. The driver's view of the oncoming train was blocked and the van was hit, throwing students from the van. One student was dragged by the train and killed. As common carriers, the Parenas were presumed negligent for accidents involving passengers. They failed to prove the driver was not negligent by taking the risky shortcut and crossing the tracks without ensuring it was safe. The court ruled the Parenas were liable for breach of their contract to safely transport students, including the death of the respondent's son.

Uploaded by

Anne Ocampo
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
159 views1 page

Sps Parena v. Sps. Zarate Case Digest

The Parenas operated a school bus service that transported students for a fee. On the day of the incident, the driver took a shortcut on a narrow path that crossed railroad tracks. The driver's view of the oncoming train was blocked and the van was hit, throwing students from the van. One student was dragged by the train and killed. As common carriers, the Parenas were presumed negligent for accidents involving passengers. They failed to prove the driver was not negligent by taking the risky shortcut and crossing the tracks without ensuring it was safe. The court ruled the Parenas were liable for breach of their contract to safely transport students, including the death of the respondent's son.

Uploaded by

Anne Ocampo
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

Sps. Parena v. Sps.

Nicolas and Zarate roads by the methods by which the business was
conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee

As common carrier, the Perenas were already presumed


Facts:
to be negligent at the time of the accident bec death
 The Parenas were engaged in the business of had occurred to their passengers. Perenas failed to
transporting students from their houses overturn the presumption of their negligence by
 On the day of the incident, the drive of the van credible evidence.
took a shortcut because they were running late The negligence of their driver was apparent. The driver
already. The driver took a narrow path where was fully aware of the risks to his passengers but he still
the rail road crosses. There were no railroad disregarded the risks. The route is the point where PNR
signs or watch men did not permit motorists going into the Makati area to
 The driver drove the van across the railroad cross the railroad tracks. The driver was playing loud
tracks. His view of the oncoming train was music which probably reducedhis ability to hear the
blocked because he overtook the passenger warning horns of the oncoming train. Lastly, he did not
bus. Unfortunately, the van was hit by the train. slow down or go to a full stop before travetrsing the
The impact threw the students out of the van. railroad tracks despite knowing that his slackening of
One of the passengers, the son of the speed and going to a full stop were in observance of the
respondent, landed in the path of the train right of way at railroad tracks. He thereby violated a
which dragged his body and severed his head, specific traffic regulation on right of way, by virtue of
instantaneously killing him which he was immediately presumed to be negligent.
 The respondent Zarates commenced the action
for damages against the Sps. Perenas
 The Zarates claim against the Perenas was upon
breach of the contract of carriage for the safe
transport of their son
 In their defense, the Perenas adduced
evidenced showing that they exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of the driver, by
making sure that the driver was duly licensed
and had not been involved in any vehicular
accident prior to the collision

Issue:

WON the Sps. Parena are liable for the death of the sps.
Zarate’s son.

Ruling:

Yes. A common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or


association engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or good or both, by land,
water, or air, for compensation, offering such services
ot the public. As a common carrier, it is required to
observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be
at fault or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of
the effects of passengers, or the death or injuries of the
passengers.

Despite catering to a limited clientele, the Perenas


operated as a common carrier because they held
themselves out as a ready transportation
indiscriminately to the students of a particular school
living within or near where they operated the service
and for a fee. There is no question that the Perenas as
the operators of a school bus service were (a) engaged
in the transporting passengers generally as a business;
(b) undertaking to carry passengers over established

You might also like