Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    8 - PNR Vs Bunty (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled as follows: 1) PNR was more negligent than the driver Mercelita for failing to install adequate safety measures like cross bars or signal lights at the railroad crossing, despite its duty to ensure public safety. 2) Mercelita was also guilty of contributory negligence for driving recklessly, but this did not negate PNR's liability. 3) The doctrine of last clear chance did not apply since PNR's negligence was established as the proximate cause, not Mercelita having the last opportunity to avoid the accident.

    Copyright:

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

    8 - PNR Vs Bunty (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    87 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled as follows: 1) PNR was more negligent than the driver Mercelita for failing to install adequate safety measures like cross bars or signal lights at the railroad crossing, despite its duty to ensure public safety. 2) Mercelita was also guilty of contributory negligence for driving recklessly, but this did not negate PNR's liability. 3) The doctrine of last clear chance did not apply since PNR's negligence was established as the proximate cause, not Mercelita having the last opportunity to avoid the accident.

    Original Title

    8 - PNR vs Bunty (2006)

    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 as follows: 1) PNR was more negligent than the driver Mercelita for failing to install adequate safety measures like cross bars or signal lights at the railroad crossing, despite its duty to ensure public safety. 2) Mercelita was also guilty of contributory negligence for driving recklessly, but this did not negate PNR's liability. 3) The doctrine of last clear chance did not apply since PNR's negligence was established as the proximate cause, not Mercelita having the last opportunity to avoid the accident.

    Copyright:

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

    8 - PNR Vs Bunty (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled as follows: 1) PNR was more negligent than the driver Mercelita for failing to install adequate safety measures like cross bars or signal lights at the railroad crossing, despite its duty to ensure public safety. 2) Mercelita was also guilty of contributory negligence for driving recklessly, but this did not negate PNR's liability. 3) The doctrine of last clear chance did not apply since PNR's negligence was established as the proximate cause, not Mercelita having the last opportunity to avoid the accident.

    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 2

    Philippine National Railways vs Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel M.

    Garcia
    GR No. 169891, November 2, 2006
    FACTS:

     Rhonda Brunty, an American citizen, came to the PH for a visit. Before her departure, she, together
    with her Filipino host, Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz,
    about 12:00 midnight. By then, a PNR Train, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban,
    Metro Manila as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m. By 2:00 a.m., Rhonda Brunty, Garcia
    and Mercelita (driver) were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada,
    Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad
    track up ahead and that they were about to collide with a PNR Train. Mercelita was instantly killed
    when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical
    injuries. Unfortunately, Rhonda was pronounced dead in the hospital. However, Garcia suffered
    severe head injuries and was transferred to another hospital for further treatment.
     Ethel Brunty (mother of Rhona) sent a demand letter to the PNY demanding payment of actual,
    compensatory and moral damages as a result of her daughter’s death. Yet, PNR did not respond. This
    prompted Ethel and Garcia to file a complaint for damages against the PNR before the RTC.

    Ethel and Garcia (plaintiffs) PNR (respondent)


    - Alleged that the death of Mercelita and - Claimed that it exercised the diligence of a
    Rhonda as well as the physical injuries good father of a family not only in the
    suffered by Garcia were the direct and selection but also in the supervision of its
    proximate result of the gross and reckless employees
    negligence of PNR in not providing the - It had the right of way on the railroad
    necessary equipment at the railroad crossing in question
    crossing in Brgy. Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac - It has no legal duty to put up a bar/red light
    - There was no flagbar or red light signal to signal in any such crossing
    warn motorists who were about to cross the - There were adequate, visible and clear
    railroad track, and that the flagman or warning signs posted on the sides of the
    switchman was only equipped with a hand road before the railroad crossing
    flashlight - The immediate and proximate cause of the
    - PNR failed to supervise its employees in the accident was Mercelita’s negligence and
    performance of their respective tasks and that he had the last clear chance to avoid
    duties, more particularly the pilot and the accident. The driver disregarded the
    operator of the train warning signs, the whistle blasts of the
    oncoming train and the flashlight signals to
    stop
     RTC: Granted the plaintiffs’ complaint for damages and directed PNR to pay damages on the former
     CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision with partial modifications, increasing the death indemnity award and
    deleted award for damages sustained by the Mercedes Benz; the appellate court ruled that the
    alleged safety measures installed by the PNY at the railroad crossing were not merely inadequate,
    they did not satisfy the well-settled safety standards in transportation; yet, CA did  not agree with the
    RTC’s findings on the contributory negligence of Mercelita, he could not have foreseen the harm that
    would befall him and the 2 other passengers under the prevailing circumstances, thus, he could not
    be considered guilty of contributory negligence.

    Issues:

    1. Who is more negligent, is it PNR or Mercelita (driver)?


    2. Whether/not Mercelita (driver of the Mercedes Benz) guilty of contributory negligence?
    3. Whether/not doctrine of last clear chance is applicable in the present case?

    Held:
    1. PNR. As a rule, railroad companies owe to the public a duty of exercising a reasonable degree of
    care to avoid injury to persons and property at railroad crossings, which duties pertain both in
    the operation of trains and in the maintenance of the crossings. Moreover, every corporation
    constructing or operating a railway shall make and construct at all points where such railway
    crosses any public road, good, sufficient, and safe crossings and erect at such points, at a
    sufficient elevation from such road as to admit a free passage of vehicles of every kind, a sign
    with large and distinct letters placed thereon, to give notice of the proximity of the railway, and
    warn persons of the necessity of looking out for trains. In the present case, PNR failed to put a
    cross bar, or signal light, flagman or switchman, or semaphores. Such failure is evidence of
    negligence and disregard of the safety of the public, even if there is no law or ordinance
    requiring it because public safety demands that said device or equipment be installed.
    2. Yes, Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is conduct
    on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which
    falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To hold a
    person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that
    brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and
    body. To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although
    not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense,
    negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a
    condition for its occurrence. In the present case, it was established that Mercelita was driving the
    Mercedes Benz at a speed of 70 km/hr and had overtaken a vehicle a few yards before reaching
    the railroad track. Mercelita should not have driven the car the way he did. While Mercelita’s acts
    contributed to the collision, they do not negate PNR’s liability.
    3. No, the doctrine of last clear chance is inapplicable in this case.  The doctrine of last
    clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
    appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
    negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but
    failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of
    plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence
    of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
    diligence. The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of
    PNR, the SC held that the doctrine of last clear chance finds no application in the instant case.

    Wherefore, the Decision of Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS as to the


    award of damages.

    You might also like