CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

M. H., RAKES vs.THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY

G.R. No. 1719 January 23, 1907

FACTS:

M.H. Rakes was a black man working as a laborer for Atlantic Gulf in the early
1900s. One day, they were working in the company’s yard and they were transporting
heavy rails using two cars; each car carrying the opposite ends of the rails. The cars
were pulled by rope from the front and other workers are pushing the cars from behind.
There were no side guards installed on the sides of the cars but the rails were secured
by ropes. The track where the cars move were also weakened by a previous typhoon. It
was alleged that Atlantic’s foreman was notified of said damage in the tracks but the
same were left unrepaired. While the cars were being moved and when it reached the
depressed portion of the track, and while Rakes was beside one of the cars, the ropes
gave in and the rails slipped thereby crushing his leg and causing it to be amputated.
Rakes sued Atlantic Gulf and he won; he was awarded 5,000 pesos for damages
($2,500).
Atlantic assailed the decision of the lower court alleging that they specifically
ordered their workers to be walking only before or after the cars and not on the side of
the cars because the cars have no side guards to protect them in case the rails would
slip. Atlantic also alleged that Rakes should be suing the foreman as it was him who
neglected to have the tracks repaired; that Rakes himself was negligent for having
known of the depression on the track yet he continued to work.

ISSUE:

Is the Company liable notwithstanding the contributory negligence of Rakes?

RULING:

Yes. Rakes according to the evidence could not have known of the damage in
the track as it was another employee who swore he notified the foreman about said
damage. The Court ruled that His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing
the slight depression of the rail was not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence.
On the other hand though, Rakes contributory negligence can be inferred from the fact
that he was on the side of the cars when in fact there were orders from the company
barring workers from standing near the side of the cars; where the plaintiff and his
witnesses swear that not only were they not forbidden to proceed in this way, but were
expressly directed by the foreman to do so, both the officers of the company and three
of the workmen testify that there was a general prohibition frequently made known to all
the gang against walking by the side of the car, and the foreman swears that he
repeated the prohibition before the starting of this particular load. His disobedient to this
order does not bar his recovery of damages though; The Supreme Court instead
reduced the award of damages from 5,000 pesos to 2,500 pesos.
In this case, the SC also elucidated the two kinds of culpa which are:
Culpa as substantive and independent, which on account of its origin arises in an
obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any other obligation; may be also
considered as a real source of an independent obligation (extra-contractual or culpa
aquiliana).

Culpa as an incident in the performance of an obligation which cannot be

presumed to exist without the other, and which increases the liability arising from the
already existing obligation (contractual or culpa contractual).