- That night, apparently not only the
rails were above-ground, but that
Wright v. Manila Electric
E. M. WRIGHT, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MANILA ELECTRIC R.R. & LIGHT CO., defendant-
appellant.
Ponencia: J. Moreland
Petition to recover damages for injuries
Setting: Aug 8, 1909, Caloocan city.
Plaintiff: homeowner. His residence fronts the
street on which runs the railway track operated
by defendant corporation, so he has to cross
them everytime he goes home.
Defendant: Electric railway operator,
corporation in charge of a railway going through
Manila and its suburbs, including plaintiff’s
neighbourhood.
Facts:
1. Aug 8, 1909
- Plaintiff was in a calesa driving
home. In crossing the tracks to
enter his premises the horse
stumbled, leaped forward, and fell,
causing the vehicle with the rails,
resulting in a sudden stop, threw
plaintiff from the vehicle and
caused the injuries complained of.
the ties upon which the rails rested
projected from one-third to one-
half of their depth out of the
ground, thus making the tops of the
rails some 5 or 6 inches or more
above the level of the street. (I
promise I’ll research on how the
hell this is supposed to look like)
- Defendant: admitted its negligence
in failing the maintenance of the
rails, but pointed out that plaintiff
was drunk that night.
TC ruling: Factoring in the above, the TC held
that both parties were negligent, but the
defendant’s negligence was greater than the
plaintiff’s, and so apportioned damages.
Plaintiff was awarded a judgment of P1,000.
Both parties appealed.
Main issues:
Defendant: Assuming the TC was correct and
both parties were guilty of negligence, did the
plaintiff’s contribute to the principal occurrence
or only to his own injury? If the former, then he
can’t recover. If the latter, then the TC’s
judgment was right.
Counsel: The principal occurrence was the
plaintiff’s fall from the calesa. His intoxication
contributed to this bc he had been crossing and
going home safely hundreds of times before.
Plaintiff: The main question at issue is whether
or not the plaintiff was negligent, and, if so, to
what extent. If the negligence of the plaintiff
was the primary cause of the accident then, of
course, he cannot recover; if his negligence had
nothing to do with the accident but contributed find facts in the opinion of the court
to his injury, then the court was right in below which justify a larger verdict
apportioning the damages, but if there was no than the one found.”
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, then he
should be awarded damages adequates to the
injury sustained.

Basically, ito gusto nila: Defendant says it’s not

liable bc kasalanan naman ni Plaintiff na
naglasing siya. Si plaintiff says that the damages
awarded were insufficient considering the
evidence of what he went through.

SC’s Holding:

- Sided with plaintiff. TC hadn’t

uncovered enough to prove
Plaintiff’s intoxication really did
contribute to the situation. They
just based their judgment on Doctor
Kneedler’s testimony (the physician
who attended to the plaintiff one
hour after the accident) that he was
drunk, and went from there.

- Plaintiff’s intoxication doesn’t

warrant the conclusion that he was
negligent. The fact is, the condition
the defendants left their rails in
would’ve caused an accident no
matter how sober plaintiff had
been. There’s no proof that plaintiff
was even negligent at all, and to say
so would be heading off into
speculation.

- “It having been found that the

plaintiff was not negligent, it is
unnecessary to discuss the question
presented by the appellant
company with reference to the
applicability of the case of Rakes vs.
A. G. & P. Co., above; and we do not