Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 147 views

    Gabeto Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    tinct
    This case involves a dispute over liability for a death that occurred after a horse pulling a carromata became startled and ran away. According to the facts presented: 1) Agaton Araneta stopped the carromata in the street by grabbing the reins, arguing he had called for it first. 2) When the driver tried to continue, the bridle came off the horse's mouth. 3) While the driver was fixing the bridle, the uncontrolled horse pulled the carromata onto the sidewalk and frightened itself further by hitting a telephone box, causing it to run away. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Araneta's initial interference was not the proximate cause

    Copyright:

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

    Gabeto Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    tinct
    147 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over liability for a death that occurred after a horse pulling a carromata became startled and ran away. According to the facts presented: 1) Agaton Araneta stopped the carromata in the street by grabbing the reins, arguing he had called for it first. 2) When the driver tried to continue, the bridle came off the horse's mouth. 3) While the driver was fixing the bridle, the uncontrolled horse pulled the carromata onto the sidewalk and frightened itself further by hitting a telephone box, causing it to run away. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Araneta's initial interference was not the proximate cause

    Original Description:

    Gabeto vs Araneta

    Original Title

    Gabeto vs Araneta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over liability for a death that occurred after a horse pulling a carromata became startled and ran away. According to the facts presented: 1) Agaton Araneta stopped the carromata in the street by grabbing the reins, arguing he had called for it first. 2) When the driver tried to continue, the bridle came off the horse's mouth. 3) While the driver was fixing the bridle, the uncontrolled horse pulled the carromata onto the sidewalk and frightened itself further by hitting a telephone box, causing it to run away. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Araneta's initial interference was not the proximate cause

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    147 views1 page

    Gabeto Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    tinct
    This case involves a dispute over liability for a death that occurred after a horse pulling a carromata became startled and ran away. According to the facts presented: 1) Agaton Araneta stopped the carromata in the street by grabbing the reins, arguing he had called for it first. 2) When the driver tried to continue, the bridle came off the horse's mouth. 3) While the driver was fixing the bridle, the uncontrolled horse pulled the carromata onto the sidewalk and frightened itself further by hitting a telephone box, causing it to run away. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Araneta's initial interference was not the proximate cause

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gabeto Vs Araneta

    Facts: It appears in evidence that on August 4, 1918. Basilio Ilano and Proceso Gayetano took a
    carromata near Plaza Gay, in the City of Iloilo, with a view to going to a cockpit on Calle Ledesma in the
    same City. When the driver of the carromata had turned his horse and started in the direction indicated, the
    defendant, Agaton Araneta, stepped out into the street, and laying his hands on the reins, stopped
    the horse, at the same time protesting to the driver that he himself had called this carromata first. The
    driver, one Julio Pagnaya, replied to the effect that he had not heard or seen the call of Araneta, and that
    he had taken up the two passengers then in the carromata as the first who had offered employment. At or
    about the same time Pagnaya pulled on the reins of the bridle to free the horse from the control of Agaton
    Araneta, in order that the vehicle might pass on. Owing, however, to the looseness of the bridle on the
    horse's head or to the rottenness of the material of which it was made, the bit came out of the horse's
    mouth; and it became necessary for the driver to get out, which he did, in order to find the bridle. The horse
    was then pulled over to near the curb, by one or the other — it makes no difference which — and Pagnaya
    tried to fix the bridle.

    While he was thus engaged, the horse, being free from the control of the bit, became disturbed and
    moved forward, in doing which he pulled one of the wheels of the carromata up on the sidewalk and
    pushed Julio Pagnaya over. After going a few years further the side of the carromata struck a police
    telephone box which was fixed to a post on the sidewalk, upon which the box came down with a crash and
    frightened the horse to such an extent that he set out at full speed up the street.

    Meanwhile one of the passengers, to wit. Basilio Ilano, had alighted while the carromata was as yet
    alongside the sidewalk; but the other, Proceso Gayetano, had unfortunately retained his seat, and after the
    runaway horse had proceeded up the street to a point in front of the Mission Hospital, the said Gayetano
    jumped or fell from the rig, and in so doing received injuries from which he soon died.

    Issue: Whether or not the act of Araneta is the proximate cause of the death of Gayetano?

    Held: No.

    We (SC) are of the opinion that the mere fact that the defendant interfered with the carromata by
    stopping the horse in the manner stated would not make him liable for the death of Proceso Gayetano;
    because it is admitted by Julio Pagnaya that he afterwards got out of the carromata and went to the
    horse's head to fix the bridle. The evidence is furthermore convincing to the effect that, after Julio
    Pagnaya alighted, the horse was conducted to the curb and that an appreciable interval of time elapsed —
    same witnesses say several minutes — before the horse started on his career up the street.

    It is therefore evident that the stopping of the rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the street was
    too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof.
    Moreover, by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse, the driver was the person primarily
    responsible for the control of the animal, and the defendant cannot be charged with liability for the
    accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter.

    The evidence indicates that the bridle was old, and the leather of which it was made was probably
    so weak as to be easily broken. Julio Pagnaya had a natural interest in refuting this fact, as well as in
    exculpating himself in other respects; and we are of the opinion that the several witnesses who testified for
    the defendant gave a more credible account of the affair than the witnesses for the plaintiff. According to
    the witnesses for the defendant, it was Julio who jerked the rein, thereby causing the bit it come out of
    the horse's mouth; and they say that Julio, after alighting, led the horse over to the curb, and proceeded to
    fix the bridle; and that in so doing the bridle was slipped entirely off, when the horse, feeling himself free
    from control, started to go away as previously stated.

    You might also like