Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co.

,
G.R. No. L-12191 October 14,1918
Contributory Negligence; Passengers Duty
Art. 1761. The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid
injury to himself.
Art. 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages
for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common
carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.
FACTS:
Cangco was employed as a typist clerk with Manila Railroad Co., (MRR for brevity). Every day,
he uses the free pass provided by the MRR in his way to reach work and to return to his home.
On 20 January 1915, he alighted from the train while the train is not yet on its full stop. Unaware
of the pile of watermelon on the flat form, he slipped and was dragged, causing his body to be
rolled from the platform. He was drawn under the moving car which had a full stop only after six
(6) meters from the moment of the incident. As a consequence, his arm was amputated.
Cangco filed before the CFI of Manila for recovery of damages against MRR alleging negligence
on the part of MRRs employees for the piled watermelons on the platform. The lower court
ruled that Cangco was in himself negligent for not waiting for the trains full stop before he
alighted therefrom, thus, he is therefore precluded form recovering. Cangco appealed.
ISSUE: That MRR should not be held liable because Cangcos own negligence caused the
damages sought to be recovered.
RULING:
Yes, MRR should be held liable.
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 conditions of
the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be
considered. The test by which to determine whether the passenger has been guilty of negligence
is this: Was there anything in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time he alighted
from the train which would have admonished a person of average prudence that to get off the
train under the conditions then existing was dangerous? If so, the plaintiff should have desisted
from alighting; and his failure so to desist was contributory negligence.
In this case, Cangco was alleged to be guilty of contributory negligence because he stepped off
the car without being able to discern clearly the condition of the platform and while the train was
yet slowly moving. However, he is at the same time ignorant of the fact that the obstruction

which was caused by the sacks of melons piled on the platform existed, along with the fact that
the area was dimly lighted. Our conclusion is 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. It may be noted that the place was
perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and off the train at this
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.
Our conclusion is 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.