Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 64 views

    Transpo Phil Rabbit Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    sdysangco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the jeepney owners and driver were liable for damages caused by the accident, not the bus driver. The jeepney's negligence in making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic was the proximate cause of the accident. Under the law on carrier liability, an accident caused by the carrier's negligence is not an exempting "caso fortuito" or fortuitous event. The last clear chance doctrine did not apply as this was a case between a passenger and carrier, not two vehicles. The jeepney owners and driver were responsible for safely transporting the passengers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Transpo Phil Rabbit Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    sdysangco
    64 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the jeepney owners and driver were liable for damages caused by the accident, not the bus driver. The jeepney's negligence in making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic was the proximate cause of the accident. Under the law on carrier liability, an accident caused by the carrier's negligence is not an exempting "caso fortuito" or fortuitous event. The last clear chance doctrine did not apply as this was a case between a passenger and carrier, not two vehicles. The jeepney owners and driver were responsible for safely transporting the passengers.

    Original Description:

    transpo

    Original Title

    Transpo Phil Rabbit vs Iac

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the jeepney owners and driver were liable for damages caused by the accident, not the bus driver. The jeepney's negligence in making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic was the proximate cause of the accident. Under the law on carrier liability, an accident caused by the carrier's negligence is not an exempting "caso fortuito" or fortuitous event. The last clear chance doctrine did not apply as this was a case between a passenger and carrier, not two vehicles. The jeepney owners and driver were responsible for safely transporting the passengers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views1 page

    Transpo Phil Rabbit Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    sdysangco
    The Supreme Court ruled that the jeepney owners and driver were liable for damages caused by the accident, not the bus driver. The jeepney's negligence in making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic was the proximate cause of the accident. Under the law on carrier liability, an accident caused by the carrier's negligence is not an exempting "caso fortuito" or fortuitous event. The last clear chance doctrine did not apply as this was a case between a passenger and carrier, not two vehicles. The jeepney owners and driver were responsible for safely transporting the passengers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Whether or not the case is considered as caso

    fortuito
    Held
    No, it is not caso fortuito. Spouses Mangune are
    liable.
    Ratio
    The last clear chance doctrine does not apply in
    this case. The principle about the last clear
    chance would call for application in a suit
    between the owners and drivers of the two
    colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
    passenger demands responsibility from the carrier
    to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would
    be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of
    the jeepney and its owners on the ground that
    the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
    The proximate cause of the accident was the
    negligence of Manalo and spouses Mangune and
    Carreon. They all failed to exercise the
    precautions that are needed precisely prohac
    vice.
    In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger
    dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have
    been at fault or to have acted negligently, and
    this disputable presumption may only be
    overcome by evidence that he had observed
    extra-ordinary diligence.
    In an action for damages against the carrier for
    his failure to safely carry his passenger to his
    destination, an accident caused either by defects
    in the automobile or through the negligence of its
    driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid
    the carriers liability for damages. The negligence
    of Manalo was proven by the unrebutted
    testimonies of the other passengers who were
    presented as witnesses and in the application of
    res ipsa loquitur.

    PHILIPPINE RABBIT INC. VS IAC


    In an action for damages against the carrier for
    his failure to safely carry his passenger to his
    destination, an accident caused either by defects
    in the automobile or through the negligence of its
    driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid
    the carriers liability for damages.
    Facts
    The private respondents boarded the jeepney
    owned by the spouses Mangune and was driven
    by Manalo. The jeepney was Pampanga bound.
    Upon reaching Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the
    jeepney was detached, so it was running in an
    unbalanced position. Manalo stepped on the
    brake. As a result, the jeepney, which was then
    running on the eastern lane (its right of way),
    made a U- turn, invading and eventually stopping
    on the western lane of the road in such a manner
    that the jeepneys front faced the south (from
    where it came) and its rear faced the north
    (towards where it was going). The jeepney
    practically occupied and blocked the greater
    portion of the western lane, which is the right of
    way of vehicles coming from the north, among
    which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine
    Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas
    delos Reyes. The bus bumped from behind the
    right rear portion of the jeepney.
    3 of the passengers died as a result of the
    collision. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the
    spouses Mangune and Manalo on the breach of
    contract of carriage. They also filed a suit against
    Rabbit and delos Reyes based on quasi-delict.
    The trial court found Manalo (jeepney driver)
    liable for damages. The appellate court reversed
    the trial courts decision and found delos Reyes
    (bus driver) liable based on the last clear chance
    doctrine.
    Issue

    You might also like