Lilius V Manila Railroad

Due diligence as defense
No. 39587
Lilius v Manila Railroad (1934)
Villa-Real J.
Summarized by Dino Roel De Guzman
Summary: Train collided with a family car because the Manila Train Company failed to put semaphores
or signs near a crossing and that its employees failed to man their posts as flagman and switchman to
warn passers-by. Doctrine held here is that Diligence of good father not limited to only selection, but
also to supervision.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
 Plaintiff Aleko Lilius – well-known and reputed journalist, author, and photographer of The
American Weekly and The Sphere. Claimed monthly income of P1,500
 Plaintiff Sonja Lilius – translated articles and books into English, German and Swedish and acted
as his secretary.
 Brita – the 4 year old child
FACTS
Two appeals in case made. One by defendant Manila Railroad, another by plaintiffs Aleko Lilius, et al.
1. @7 am, Aleko, Sonja and 4 year old daughter Brita riding a Studebaker car left Manila going to
Pagsanjan Laguna for sightseeing.
 This is his first time going there thus is unfamiliar with conditions of road and has NO
KNOWLEDGE of a railroad crossing at DAYAP.
i. Notable here is that there was nothing to indicate (a semaphore or a sign) the
existence of the crossing. There were many trees houses and shrubs along the
road thus was impossible to see an approaching train.
ii. Also latter in the case it was known that there should be a flagman carrying a
red and green flag, but was many times absent from post
iii. Switchman also absent
iv. Train also left late thus traveled at great speed
 He was driving @ 19-25 miles per hour. Road then was clear and unobstructed
2. @ around 7-8 meters from crossing, plaintiff saw AUTOTRUCK parked at side of road.
 Several people alighted the truck and thus crossing toward the opposite side of the
road.
3. Aleko slowed down to 12 miles per hour and sounded his horn so people will get out of his way.
 Here his attention was occupied by the event. He did not see the crossing BUT he heard
two short whistles
1
4. Aleko saw a huge black mass towards them which was LOCOMOTIVE 713 coming eastward from
Bay to Dayap Station.
5. Train struck his car in right center dragging the car ten meters then threw it upon a siding.
 Wife and daughter thrown from the car to the ground and was unconscious and
seriously hurt.
6. The engineer (ANDRES BASILIO) made effort but it was only until it had gone 70 meters was it
able to stop.
7. @ afternoon of same day – victims were at the St Paul’s Hospital in Manila were they were
treated by Dr. Waterous.
 Aleko: fractured nose, contusion L eye, lacerated wound on R leg. Plaintiff became
highly nervous and had difficulty concentrating, thus could not write articles nor short
stories for the newspaper and magazines losing only means of livelihood.
 Sonja: fractured pelvis, tibia and fibula of R leg, below knee, and has a large lacerated
wound@ forehead. She required surgical operations on left leg to join fractured bones,
however bone still deformed. Such was PERMANENT thus had DIFFICULTY WALKING.
She also had a DISFIGURING scar on forehead.
 Brita: two lacerated wounds, fractures to both legs. Serious condition bordering life and
death. Survived due to timely operations. Lacerations with deep scars PERMANENT
DISFIGURATION on face and will be forced to walk with difficulty and extreme care.
8. CFI Manila: ordered defendant company Manila Railroad to pay total of P30,865
9. MRC appealed; so did Aleko et al to increase it to P 50k
ISSUE with HOLDING

1. Negligence of the employees? YES
 Flagman and switchman did not remain at their post at the corssing to warn passers-by of train
 Stationmaster for failing to send the flagman and switchman to their post on time.
 Engineer for not taking necessary precautions to avoid accident in view of absence of the
flagman and switchman and by slackening the speed and continuously ringing the bell and
blowing whistle before arriving at the crossing.
2. Negligence of the Company? YES
 First and foremost no semaphore to announce the existence of the crossing.
 May have employed diligence in selecting employees but DID NOT EMPLOY such diligence in
SUPERVISING their work and the DISCHARGE of their duties because the flagman and switchman
should always have been at their post.
o The diligence of a good father of a family which the law requires is not confined to
careful and prudent selection of subordinates or employees, but also includes
inspection of their work and supervision of the discharge of their duties.
3. Contributory negligence? NO
 Aleko took all precautions which his skill and presence of his family suggested to him.
2
o He was driving at a prudent speed according to the circumstances
o Blew the horn upon seeing persons on the road and requested them to get out of the
way
o If he failed to stop look and listen before crossing in spite of driving at 12 miles per hour
it was because his attention ocucpied in attempting to go ahead. His first and only
warning was the two short blows of a whistle immediately preceding the collision.
4. Claims?
 Aleko: 10,635 reasonable and duly proven at court. Clais of net income of 1.5k a month was
exaggerated.
 Sonja: “young and beautiful” considering her social standing and the deformities and injury: 10
k.
o “Gutierrez v Gutierrez” – autobus collision with defendant’s car. Defendant had fracture
and possibly permanent lameness. TC: 10k; SC: 5k b/c plaintiff was neither young nor
good-looking nor suffered any facial deformity as opposed to the social standing of
Sonja.
 Brita: 5k taking note of the permanent disfigurement and effects on her walking affecting her
matrimonial future.
 On claims of 10k by Aleko for damages by loss of wife’s service in business b/c realized net
monthly income of 1.5k; SC held: Aleko has not presented any evidence for such service as basis
for the estimation. That the wife’’s assistance was purely personal and voluntary as spouses. It is
necessary for him to prove existence of such assistance ad his wife’s willingness to continue
rendering it had she not been prevented by ilness.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Affirmed in toto.

Lilius V Manila Railroad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lilius V Manila Railroad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lilius V Manila Railroad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Due diligence as defense

ISSUE with HOLDING

You might also like