Assistant Named Bueno To Drive The Said Car

This case is about the contract of carriage entered between the respondent Smith Jr.
,
who is the owner of the public garage in the town of San Fernando, La Union and the
plaintiffs Mr. Lasam together with his wife Joaquina Sanchez
The spouses took the services of the said public garage to take them from San
Fernando to Ilocos Norte, the Ford automobile was driven by a licensed chauffeur at
first, but after having reached the town of San Juan the same allowed his
assistant named Bueno to drive the said car
The assistant Bueno does not have any driver’s license but had some experience in
driving, at first the car functioned well, however after crossing the Abra River in
Tagudin defects developed in the steering gear so as to make accurate steering
impossible, and after zigzagging for a distance of about half a kilometer, the car
left the road and went down a steep embankment.
In going over the bank of the road, the car was overturned and the plaintiffs pinned
down under it (causing them to acquire injuries)
On the defense of Mr. Smith JR he averred that there was no defect in the steering
gear, neither before nor after the accident, and expresses the defense that the
swaying or zigzagging of the car must have been due to its having been driven at
an excessive rate of speed.
As recognized by the SC in this case, the complaint itself, even though tried siding to
the theory of torts under article 1903 NOW 2180 of the Civil Code, it should be tried
from the cause of action on the defendant’s breach of contract of carriage and it upheld
the lower court’s decision that the breach of contract is not due to any fortuitous event
that should exempt the defendant from liability.
The Supreme Court reiterated the judicial precedent in terms of contract of carriage
that by entering into this kind of contract a person bounds himself to carry the
passengers safely and securely to their destination; and that having failed to do
so he is liable for damages UNLESS he shows that the failure to fulfill his
obligation was due to causes mentioned in article 1105 (now 1174 of the Civil
Code which clearly states that a person can be exempted from the liability in
events that which could not be foreseen or which, even if foreseen, were inevitable.
Now, coming to the issues of this case sir, we have two: first what is the meaning of the
phrase "events which cannot be foreseen and which, having been foreseen, are
inevitable?"
Second by answering the first issue, will the accident be considered to fall within the
definition of the said phrase for the defendant to be exempted from any liability?
On the first issue the SC established that the Spanish authorities regard the language
employed as an effort to define the term caso fortuito and emphasized the definition
made by Escriche that caso fortuito is an unexpected event or act of God which
could either be foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, torrents, shipwrecks,
conflagrations, lightning, compulsion, insurrections, destructions, destruction of
buildings by unforseen accidents and other occurrences of a similar nature."
On the second issue, The SC established that in order for caso fortuito to concur
these requirements must be present:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the
debtor to comply with his obligation, must BE INDEPENDENT OF THE HUMAN
WILL (OR TO BE SPECIFIC, THE DEBTOR’S WILL).
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or
even if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid. (in our current civil law
this is the term inevitable)
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
his obligation in a normal manner. And
(4) the obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the
injury resulting to the creditor." (5 Enciclopedia Juridica Española, 309.)
the SC ruled that the accident in question was not due to an act of god or to
adverse road conditions which could not have been foreseen. That as far as the
records shows, the accident was caused either by defects in the automobile or
else through the negligence of its driver, and does not fall within the definition
of caso fortuito.
Mr. Lasam escaped with a few contusions and a "dislocated" rib, but his wife received
serious injuries, among which was a compound fracture of one of the bones in her left
wrist

Assistant Named Bueno To Drive The Said Car

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assistant Named Bueno To Drive The Said Car

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Assistant Named Bueno To Drive The Said Car

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This case is about the contract of carriage entered between the respondent Smith Jr.

You might also like