Scribd
Upload
126 views1 page

Del Rosario DIGEST

1) Julian del Rosario sued Manila Electric Company after his son Alberto died from an electric shock caused by touching a fallen power line on the street. 2) The power line had broken earlier in the day, and Manila Electric was notified but did not send anyone to address the danger for over an hour and a half. 3) The court ruled Manila Electric was negligent for the death since they did not address the broken power line danger promptly after being notified, and this negligence was the determining cause of the accident, even if the child shared some contributory negligence.

Uploaded by

TJ Merin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views1 page

Del Rosario DIGEST

1) Julian del Rosario sued Manila Electric Company after his son Alberto died from an electric shock caused by touching a fallen power line on the street. 2) The power line had broken earlier in the day, and Manila Electric was notified but did not send anyone to address the danger for over an hour and a half. 3) The court ruled Manila Electric was negligent for the death since they did not address the broken power line danger promptly after being notified, and this negligence was the determining cause of the accident, even if the child shared some contributory negligence.

Uploaded by

TJ Merin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

JUAN DEL ROSARIO VS MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Act or omission in breach of legal duty)

FACTS:

This action was instituted by Julian del Rosario for the purpose of recovering damages from the Manila
Electric Company for the death of his son, Alberto del Rosario, resulting from a shock from a wire used
by the defendant for the transmission of electricity. The accident occurred on Dimas-Alang Street, in the
municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal. Damages are claimed in the complaint in the amount of
P30,000. Upon hearing the cause, the trial court absolved the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

On August 4, 1930, trouble developed in a wire used by the defendants on Dimas- Alang Street for the
purpose of conducting electricity used in lighting the City of Manila and its suburb. In a short while the
wire parted and one of the ends of the wire fell to the ground among some shrubbery close to the way.
The defendants were telephoned that there was an electrical wire burning in the area by two witnesses
at 2.25 p.m.

At around 4p.m., the neighborhood school was dismissed, and the children went home. Among them
was Alberto Del Rosario. He told his friends that he has the habit of touching wires as if he was
challenged by his friends on touching the wire. As soon as he put his index finger on the wire, he
immediately fell face downwards while the end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell
near the post. Upon being taken to St. Lue’s, the child was pronounced dead.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendants are guilty for the death of the child.

RULING:

Yes.

We are of the opinion that the presumption of negligence on the part of the company from the
breakage of this wire has not been overcome, and the defendant is in our opinion responsible for the
accident. Furthermore, when notice was received at the Malabon station at 2.25 p. m., somebody
should have been dispatched to the scene of the trouble at once, or other measures taken to guard the
point of danger; but more than an hour and a half passed before anyone representing the company
appeared on the scene, and in the meantime this child had been claimed as a victim.

It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can properly be imputed to the deceased, owing to his
immature years and the natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary,
and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not,
in our opinion, alter the case. But even supposing that contributory negligence could in some measure
be properly imputed to the deceased, — a proposition upon which the members of the court do not all
agree, — yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case, not having
been the determining cause of the accident. (Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7 Phil., 359.)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy