26. Lainez v Batangas Transportation- Atienza [D2017]

download 26. Lainez v Batangas Transportation- Atienza [D2017]

of 1

Transcript of 26. Lainez v Batangas Transportation- Atienza [D2017]

  • 7/25/2019 26. Lainez v Batangas Transportation- Atienza [D2017]

    1/1

    Lainez v Batangas Transportation Co.Petitioner: Milagros LainezRespondent: Batangas Transportation Co.Ponente: Canizares, J.

    FACTS:

    1. Lainez boarded the bus of Batangas Transpo in the morning. An

    hour later, while the bus was going through the barrio of Calo,Batangas, it caught fire.

    . The passengers panic!ed, one of whom is Lainez, who "umped offthe bus and sustained in"uries.

    #. Two theories were posited which the Court below found to beimprobable nor impossible.

    $. Batangas Transpo% the fire was caused b& a lighted cigar orcigarette butts thrown b& careless passengers which landed onempt& dried fish bas!ets.

    '. Lainez% the bas!ets which were oil& and ignitable came into contactwith the heated muffler assembl& of the bus and caught fire.

    (. The defendant, Batangas Transpo, see!s to be absol)ed from

    liabilit& because the fire was caused b& a fortuitous e)ent.

    ISSUES:

    1. *+ Batangas Transpo is liable for damages.

    RULING RATI!:1. "es. Lainez is #$ear$% a passenger at t&e ti'e o( t&e in#ident)

    and Batangas Transpo is a #o''on #arrier. T&ere *as a#ontra#t o( #arriage.

    a. Batangas Transpo was bound to carr& her safel& as far as

    human care and foresight can pro)ide, using the utmostdiligence of a )er& cautious persons, with a due regard forall circumstances.

    +. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of thedefendant when there is in"ur& unless it can pro)e that itobser)ed e-tra ordinar& diligence.

    #. The fire in uestion was not a fortuitous e)ent.d. The act of passengers or throwing cigarette butts out of a

    mo)ing bus setting cargo and the bus afire does not fit intothe term /fortuitous e)ent0 so as to e-empt the carrier fromliabilit& for damages.

    e. t is common sense that cigarette butts thrown out of amo)ing bus would fall on ob"ects in the bus. Theseoccurrences can be foreseen and pre)ented.

    (. Batangas Transpo submitted no proof that it e-erted an&effort to pre)ent or a)oid such happening. t could ha)eprohibited passengers from smo!ing, warned passengersagainst throwing the said butts, or placed the baggage at aplace that eliminates the ris! of cigars falling on it.

    ,. Batangas Transpo 'aintains t&at Lainez is g-i$t% o( neg$igen#ein -'ping o-t o( t&e +-s despite t&e in-n#tion o( its driver.

    a. T&e Co-rt r-$ed t&at -'ping o-t o( t&e +-s is arationa$ response to t&e instin#t o( se$(/preservation.S&e -'ped o(( as t&e (ire *as +eginning to #ons-'et&e +-s.

    +. Under t&e #ir#-'stan#es an%one *o-$d &ave donee0a#t$% *&at s&e did.

    ISP!SITI!N

    T&e -dg'ent appea$ed (ro') +eing in a##ordan#e *it& eviden#eand t&e $a*) is &ere+% a((ir'ed. Costs against t&e de(endant/appe$$ant.

    S! !RERE.