YAMADA VS MANILA RAILROAD Manila Railroad and its employees are not negligent as showed by the

evidence which were uncontroverted hence no liability can be had

In January 1913, Yamada et al hired a taxi owned and operated by
against them.
Bachrach Garage so that they may travel to Cavite Viejo. The trip was
safe going to said place but when they were going back from said place
the taxi was hit by a train owned by Manila Railroad. Yamada et al sued
Bachrach Garage however is liable for damages as an employer.
the driver, Bachrach, and Manila Railroad. They claimed that the driver
Although they did establish that they have done their diligence in
was negligent as he did not slow down while he was approaching the
properly selecting their driver and in providing said driver with a good
railroad tracks. The driver said there was no way for him to see the train
car, they have failed to provide proper supervision and control over their
coming because of the tall growing bushes and trees. Bachrach said that
employee. Bachrach Garage did not perform its full duty when it
it is not liable as an employer because prior to hiring the driver, the
furnished a safe and proper car and a driver with a long and satisfactory
driver has been of good record for 5 years and had had no traffic
record. It failed to comply with one of the essential requirements of the
infractions prior to the collision; and that the negligence of the driver is
law of negligence in this jurisdiction, that of supervision and instruction,
also imputable to Yamada et al they being the ones in control of the
including the promulgation of proper rules and regulations and the
vehicle; that Yamada et al should have controlled the driver and
formulation and publication of proper instructions for their guidance in
instructed him to slow down. Manila Railroad said that it is not liable as
cases where such rules and regulations and instructions are necessary.
well because its engineers provided proper warning signals on their
approach and that there were no tall trees or bushes at the time of the
accident.
Bachrach’s contention that Yamada et al were also negligent because
they failed to properly instruct the driver is untenable. Those on a cab do
not become responsible for the negligence of the driver if they exercise
Yamada’s counsel presented the president of Bachrach who alleged that
no control over him further than to indicate the route they wish to travel
all their drivers habitually drove their taxis over railroad crossings
or the places to which they wish to go. Note that in order to impute
without slowing down or investigating whether a train is coming – such
negligence to a passenger, at least one of these two things must exist:
practice being allowed and tolerated by Bachrach.

That the driver is actually the passenger’s agent in all respect

ISSUE: Whether or not Bachrach Garage Manila railroad should be liable.
The passengers have cooperated in producing the injury complained of.

HELD: It was established that the driver was negligent. A prudent driver
should have slowed down approaching a railroad crossing regardless if
he could see a train or not regardless of the presence of tall bushes.