Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Bataclan Vs Medina

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    The bus driven by Mariano Medina's transportation company overturned after a tire burst, trapping four passengers including Bataclan. An hour later, men with torches approached to help but started a fire that burned the bus and the trapped passengers. The Supreme Court decided that the bus overturning, not the fire, was the proximate cause of Bataclan's death. Medina Transportation was found liable because the driver was negligent by speeding and failing to warn rescuers about gasoline leaks from the overturned bus.

    Copyright:

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

    Bataclan Vs Medina

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    22 views2 pages
    The bus driven by Mariano Medina's transportation company overturned after a tire burst, trapping four passengers including Bataclan. An hour later, men with torches approached to help but started a fire that burned the bus and the trapped passengers. The Supreme Court decided that the bus overturning, not the fire, was the proximate cause of Bataclan's death. Medina Transportation was found liable because the driver was negligent by speeding and failing to warn rescuers about gasoline leaks from the overturned bus.

    Original Description:

    Bataclan vs Medina CASE DIGEST CRIMINAL LAW 1

    Original Title

    Bataclan vs Medina

    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 bus driven by Mariano Medina's transportation company overturned after a tire burst, trapping four passengers including Bataclan. An hour later, men with torches approached to help but started a fire that burned the bus and the trapped passengers. The Supreme Court decided that the bus overturning, not the fire, was the proximate cause of Bataclan's death. Medina Transportation was found liable because the driver was negligent by speeding and failing to warn rescuers about gasoline leaks from the overturned bus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views2 pages

    Bataclan Vs Medina

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Pilar
    The bus driven by Mariano Medina's transportation company overturned after a tire burst, trapping four passengers including Bataclan. An hour later, men with torches approached to help but started a fire that burned the bus and the trapped passengers. The Supreme Court decided that the bus overturning, not the fire, was the proximate cause of Bataclan's death. Medina Transportation was found liable because the driver was negligent by speeding and failing to warn rescuers about gasoline leaks from the overturned bus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BATACLAN vs.

    MEDINA
    FACTS:
    Past midnight on September 13, 1952, bus no.30 of Medina Transportation operated by owner defendant
    Mariano Medina, left the town of Amadeo, Cavite, on its way to Pasay City, driven by Conrado Saylon with
    approximately 18 passengers and Bataclan is one of the passengers of the said bus who was seated beside
    of the driver. At 2:00 am, while the bus was running within the jurisdiction of Imus, Cavite, one of the front
    tires burst and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell into the canal on the right side of the road and the bus
    turned over. Consequently, four passengers including Bataclan were trapped inside the bus and could not
    get out. After an hour, ten men, carrying lighted torch made of bamboo fueled with petroleum, approached
    the bus and a fierce fire started, burning and all but consuming the bus, including the four passengers.
    By reason of the death of Bataclan, his widow, Salud Villanueva, in her name and in behalf of her five minor
    children filed a suit to recover from Mariano Medina compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages and
    attorneys fees in the total amount of P 87, 150.
    The RTC of Cavite awarded P 1000 to the plaintiffs plus 600 as attorneys fee, plus P100, value of the goods
    carried by Bataclan for sale in Pasay City. This is for the reason that the proximate cause of the death of
    Bataclan was not the overturning of the bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus including the four
    passengers. That Bataclan, though he must have suffered physical injuries, perhaps serious, was still alive
    and so the damages were awarded not for his death but for the physical inquiries suffered by him.
    Plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the decision to CA but the latter endorsed the appeal to SC because
    of the value involved in the claim of the complaint.
    ISSUE/S:
    1.
    2.

    Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was not the overturning of the
    bus, but rather, the fire that burned the bus.
    Whether or not Medina Transportation is liable.

    HELD:
    1.

    The Supreme Court decided that the overturning of the bus was not the the proximate cause of
    the death of Bataclan. Proximate cause as defined in American Jurisprudence is 'that cause,
    which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
    produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.' And more
    comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
    immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
    of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
    event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
    which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
    should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
    moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result there from.

    In the present case under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not hesitate to hold that the
    proximate cause was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on
    its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or
    unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not
    only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it
    was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them, and coming as they did
    from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available; and what was more natural than that
    said rescuers should innocently approach the vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from
    them. In other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of
    the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. What is
    more, the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through is driver
    and its conductor. According to the witness, the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and
    forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known that in the position in which the overturned
    bus was, gasoline could and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around
    the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and
    directed even from a distance, and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned
    or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus. Said negligence on the
    part of the agents of the carrier come under the codal provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles
    1733, 1759 and 1763.

    Medina Transportation is liable. The case involves breach of contract of a common carrier. There was
    negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the driver Saylon. There is evidence to show that
    at the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding, as testified to by one of the passengers, and as shown by
    the fact that according to the testimony of the witnesses, including that of the defense, from the point where
    one of the front tires burst up to the canal where the bus overturned after zig-zaging, there was a distance of
    about 150 meters. The driver, after the blow-out, must have applied the brakes in order to stop the bus, but
    because of the velocity at which the bus must have been running, its momentum carried it over a distance of
    150 meters before it fell into the canal and turned turtle. Also when the bus has already overturned, driver
    should and must have known that in the position of the bus, gasoline could and must have leaked from the
    gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when spilled,
    specially over a large area, can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet neither the driver nor
    the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted
    torch too near the bus. Said negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier come under the codal
    provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733, 1759 and 1763.

    You might also like