Del Rosario v Manila Electric Co.

No. 35283, 5 Nov 1932

FACTS:
 This is an action filed by Julian del Rosario against defendant Manila Electric Co. to recover
damages for the death of his son, Alberto.
 Shortly after 2pm, a trouble developed in a wire used by the defendant along a street for the
purpose of conducting electricity. Certain Jose Noguera first noticed the wire was burning
and its connections smoking.
 Subsequently the wire parted and one of the ends of the wire fell to the ground among some
shrubbery close to the way.
 Noguera asked the timekeeper Jose Soco to call Malabon station of Manila Electric Co to
report such. Soco transmitted the message at 2.25 pm and received answer that they would
send an inspector. When the message was sent the wire had not yet parted and according
to one of the witnesses, the parting of the wire happened shortly after 3pm.
 At 4pm the neighborhood school was dismissed. Alberto, 9years old, was walking ahead of
two other boys (Jose and Saturnino).
 When they were near the place where the wire was down, Saturnino made motion as if to
touch it but Jose (son of an electrician) cautioned him never to touch broken electrical lines.
 However, Alberto, who was walking ahead said that he has the habit of touching wires. Jose
warned him but Alberto put his index finger and immediately fell face downwards. The end of
the wire remained in contact with his body which caused his death.

ISSUE: WON defendant is liable to the death of Alberto.

RULING: YES, the Court found that the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant
from the breakage of the wire has not been overcome.

The defendant company received the report of the incident at 2.25 pm and promised to send an
inspector. 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. Thus, the defendant was responsible
for the death due to the delay in leaving this danger unguarded so long after information of the
trouble was received constituted negligence on its part.

Furthermore, the contributory negligence cannot be imputed to the deceased due to his
immature years and natural curiosity to do something out of the ordinary. When the boy touched
the wire after one of his companions had warned him not to do so, did not relieve the company of
responsibility. But even supposing that contributory negligence could be properly imputed to the
deceased, such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case, not having
been the determining cause of the accident.