48.

Butaro Yamada vs Manila Railroad and Barach Garage & Taxicab and having made no effort to caution or instruct him or compel
him to take reasonable care in making the crossing
A. PARTIES
3. They assail the decision of the trial court in finding that Manila
1. Plaintiff railroad is not negligent and averred that the railroad company
Butaro Yamada- hired an automobile from the defendant taxicab did not maintain either a flagman or protecting gates at the
company for a trip to Cavite Viejo; was driven and controlled by a grade crossing where the accident occurred, while the sign
chauffeur supplied by the taxicab company "Railroad Crossing" was broken on the side toward the road;
2. Defendants that trees and undergrowth had been permitted to grow on
a. THE MANILA RAILROAD Co- owner of the train which struck and adjoining the right of way, and houses were constructed
the automobile hired by the plaintiffs thereon, in such manner as to obstruct the view of persons
b. BACHRACH GARAGE & TAXICAB Co – owner of the approaching the railroad track until within a few meters
automobile hired by the plaintiffs; thereof; and that the approach to the crossing is twisting
B. ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs claim 4. It further alleged that the driver was competent and had a long
Journey to Cavite Viejo was made without incident but, on the return and satisfactory record, having driven cars for the defendant
trip, while crossing the tracks of defendant railroad company in the for 5 or 6 years without accident or misadventure, and that his
barrio of San Juan, municipality of Cavite Viejo, the automobile was negligence, if any, in attempting to pass over the crossing on
struck by a train and the plaintiffs injured; the driver of the automobile the occasion before us, cannot legally be imputed to the
drove his machine upon the railroad tracks without observing the taxicab company so as to make it liable for the damages
precautions which ordinary care and prudence would require, without resulting therefrom
reducing speed and without taking any precaution looking to C. Issue: Whether or not BACHRACH GARAGE & TAXICAB Co is liable to
determining whether there was danger from a train or locomotive. the plaintiffs
2. Defendant’s claim D. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a. BACHRACH GARAGE & TAXICAB Co- 1. Case filed- action for damages
1. It alleged that there was a custom established among 2. RTC Ruling- trial court dismissed the complaint on the merits as to the
automobile drivers of Manila by which they habitually drove Manila Railroad Company and held the defendant taxicab company
their cars over railroad crossings in the manner in which the liable for damages to the plaintiffs in various amounts
automobile was driven by defendant’s servant on the occasion 3. CA – petition directly filed to the SC
in controversy; to prove this, the President of the company 4. SC
testified that all of its drivers drive in that way; also they cited
Yes.
the testimony of a witness living near the scene of the crime
that , as a general rule, automobiles passed over the railroad On the first assignment of error of the defendant, the Court said that
crossing without changing speed. for the moment admitting the existence of the custom, that a practice
which is dangerous to human life cannot ripen into a custom which will
2. The appellant also contended with much vigor that the protect anyone who follows it. To go upon a railroad crossing without
plaintiffs cannot recover for the reason that the negligence of making any effort to ascertain the approach of a train is so hazardous
the driver of the automobile, if any, was imputable to them, an act and one so dangerous to life, that no one may be permitted to
they having permitted the driver to approach and pass over excuse himself who does it, provided injury results. One who performs
an act so inherently dangerous cannot, when an accident occurs, take
the railroad crossing without the use of ordinary care and
refuge behind the plea that others have performed the same act
diligence to determine the proximity of a train or locomotive,
safely.
On the second assignment of error, The Court ruled that a person who In this case the company failed to comply with one of the essential
hires a public automobile and gives the driver directions as to the requirements of the law of negligence in this jurisdiction, that of
place to which he wishes to be conveyed, but exercises no other supervision and instruction, including the promulgation of proper rules
control over the conduct of the driver, is not responsible for acts of and regulations and the formulation and publication of proper
negligence of the latter or prevented from recovering for injuries instructions for their guidance in cases where such rules and
suffered from a collision between the automobile and a train, caused regulations and instructions are necessary. To repeat, it was found by
by the negligence either of the locomotive engineer or the automobile
the trial court, and that finding is fully sustained by the record, that it
driver. . Ordinarily where one rides in a public vehicle with the driver
was the custom of the driver who operated the machine on the night of
thereof and is injured by the negligence of a third person, to which
negligence that of the driver contributes, his contributory negligence is the accident, to approach and pass over railroad crossings without
not imputable to the passenger unless said passenger has or is in the adequate precautions, and that such custom was known to and had
position to have and exercise some control over the driver with been sanctioned by the officials of the taxicab company, the president
reference to the matter wherein he was negligent. of the company testifying that none of its drivers, especially the one
who operated the machine on the night of the accident, to approach
On the third assignment of error, the Supreme Court said that it is not and pass over railroad crossings without adequate precautions, and
negligence on the part of the railroad company to maintain grade that such custom was known to and had been sanctioned by the
crossings, even in populous districts; nor is it negligence not to officials of the taxicab company, the president of the company
maintain a flagman at such crossings. It is true that a railroad company testifying that none of its drivers, especially the one who operated the
is held to greater caution in the more thronged streets of the densely car on the night of the accident, were accustomed to stop or even
populated portions of the city than in the less frequented streets in reduce speed or take any other precaution in approaching and passing
suburban parts or in towns; but this does not mean that it is negligence over railroad crossings, no matter of what nature, unless they heard
to maintain grade crossings in such densely populated portions or that "the signal of a car."
it is negligent not to maintain a flagman at crossings located in such
districts. It simply means that the company in operating its trains over
such crossings must exercise care commensurate with the use of
crossings in any give locality. And as to the existence of trees, it was
proven that there was no obstruction in the railroad.

As to the last assignment of error, the Supreme Court said that it was
the duty of the company not only to furnish a suitable and proper car
and select a competent operator, but also to supervise and, where
necessary, instruct him properly. That when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master
or employer either in the selection of the servant or employee or in
supervision over him after the selection, or both; and that presumption
is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and consequently may be
rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the
satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision the he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumption is overcome and he is relieved from liability.