Espiritu Vs Phil Devt Co

Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and Espiritu vs.
Philippine Power and

Development Co. Development Co.
(CA-G.R. No. 3240-R, September 20, 1949) (CA-G.R. No. 3240-R, September 20, 1949)
Reyes, JBL: Reyes, JBL:
In the afternoon of May 5, 1946, while plaintiff and other companions were loading grass,
the plaintiff-appellee and other companions were loading grass, an electric transmission
wire, installed and maintained by the defendant Philippine Power and an electric
transmission wire, installed and maintained by the defendant Philippine Power and
Development Co., Inc., alongside the road suddenly parted, and one Development Co., Inc.,
alongside the road suddenly parted, and one of the broken ends hit the of the broken ends
hit the head of head of the plaintiff as he was about to board the the plaintiff as he was
about to board the truck. As a result, plaintiff received the full shock of truck. As a result,
plaintiff received the full shock of 4,400 4,400 volts of the wire. The electric volts of the wire.
The electric charge coursed through his body and caused extensive and charge coursed
through his body and caused extensive and serious serious multiple burns from skull to
eyes, leaving the bone e multiple burns from skull to eyes, leaving the bone exposed in
some parts and causing intense pain and xposed in some parts and causing intense pain
and wounds that were not completely healed when the case was tried on June 18, 1947,
over one year after wounds that were not completely healed when the case was tried on
June 18, 1947, over one year after the incident. Defendant disclaimed such liability on the
ground that the plaintiff had failed to show the incident. Defendant disclaimed such liability
on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show any any specific act of negligence. specific
act of negligence.
The appellate court, in overruling this defense, held: “While it is the rule, as contended by
the appellant, The appellate court, in overruling this defense, held: “While it is the rule, as
contended by the appellant, that in case of non-contractual negligence, or that in case of
non-contractual negligence, or culpa aquiliana, the burden of proof is on the culpa aquiliana,
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to plaintiff to establish that the proximate cause of
injury was establish that the proximate cause of injury was the negligence of the defendant,
it is the negligence of the defendant, it is also a recognized also a recognized principle that
‘where the thing that causes injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the principle
that ‘where the thing that causes injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury
is such as in the ordinary course of t injury is such as in the ordinary course of things does
not hings does not occur as if he having such control used occur as if he having such
control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the the absence of the explanation, that the injury
arose from the defendant’s want of explanation, that the injury arose from the defendant’s
want of care.’ And the burden of evidence is care.’ And the burden of evidence is shifted to
him to establish that he had observed shifted to him to establish that he had observed due
diligence and care. This rule is known by the due diligence and care. This rule is known by
the name name of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or t of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or
transaction speaks for itself), and is peculiarly applicable to the case at ransaction speaks
for itself), and is peculiarly applicable to the case at bar, where it is unquestioned that the
bar, where it is unquestioned that the plaintiff had every night to be on the highway, and
plaintiff had every night to be on the highway, and the electric the electric wire was under
the sole wire was under the sole control of the defendant company. In the ordinary course o
control of the defendant company. In the ordinary course of events, electric f events, electric
wires do not part suddenly in fair we wires do not part suddenly in fair weather and injure
people, unless they are ather and injure people, unless they are subject to unusual strain
subject to unusual strain and stress or there and stress or there are defects in their
installation, maintenance and supervision, just as barrels do are defects in their installation,
maintenance and supervision, just as barrels do not not ordinarily roll out of the warehouse
windows to injure passers ordinarily roll out of the warehouse windows to injure passers-by,
unless someone is negligent (which is -by, unless someone is negligent (which is admittedly
not present), the fact that t admittedly not present), the fact that the wire snapped suffices to
raise a r he wire snapped suffices to raise a reasonable presumption of easonable
presumption of negligence in its installation, care and maintenance. Thereafter negligence
in its installation, care and maintenance. Thereafter, as , as observed by Chief Baron
Pollock “if observed by Chief Baron Pollock “if there are any facts inconsistent with negl
there are any facts inconsistent with negligence, it is for the defendant to prove.” igence, it is
for the defendant to prove.”

Espiritu Vs Phil Devt Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espiritu Vs Phil Devt Co

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

Espiritu Vs Phil Devt Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and Espiritu vs.

Philippine Power and

Reyes, JBL: Reyes, JBL:

You might also like

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