Rakes v Atlantic (Torts) injuries to his employee, it is not necessary that a criminal action be first prosecuted

against the employer or his representative primarily chargeable with the accident. No
RAKES v ATLANTIC [G.R. No. 1719. January 23, 1907.] M. H., RAKES, plaintiff-appellee, criminal proceeding having been taken, the civil action may proceed to judgment.
vs. THE ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
2. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO WORKMEN. — The responsibility of an employer to his
FACTS: The plaintiff, one of the eight negro laborers in the employment of the defendant, employee of a fellow-servant of the employee injured, is not adopted in Philippine
was at work transporting iron rails from a barge in the harbor to the company's yard near jurisprudence.
the malecon in Manila. Plaintiff claims that one hand car was used in this work. The
defendant has proved that there were two immediately following one another, upon which 3. FELLOW-SERVANT RULE. — Sua cuique culpa nocet. The doctrine known as the "Fellow-
were piled lengthwise seven rails, each weighing 560 pounds, so that the ends of the rails servant rule," exonerating the employer where the injury was incurred through the
lay upon two crosspieces or sills secured to the cars, but without side pieces or guards to negligence of a fellow-servant of the employee injured, is not adopted in Philippine
prevent them from slipping off. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, the men were jurisprudence.
either in the rear of the car or at its sides. According to that defendant, some of them were
also in front, hauling by a rope. At a certain spot at or near the water's edge the track
sagged, the tie broke, the car either canted or upset, the rails slid off and caught the
plaintiff, breaking his leg, which was afterwards amputated at about the knee.

ISSUE: Whether the company is liable

RULING: Yes. The negligence of the plaintiff, contributing to the accident, to what extent
it existed in fact and what legal effect is to be given it. In two particulars is he charged
with carelessness:

First. That having noticed the depression in the track he continued his work; and
Second.That he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the
boards, either before or behind it.

The Court ruled that His lack of caution in continuing at his work after noticing the slight
depression of the rail was not of so gross a nature as to constitute negligence, barring his
recovery under the severe American rule. While the plaintiff and his witnesses swear that
not only were they not forbidden to proceed in this way, but were expressly directed by
the foreman to do so, both the officers of the company and three of the workmen testify
that there was a general prohibition frequently made known to all the gang against walking
by the side of the car, and the foreman swears that he repeated the prohibition before the
starting of this particular load. On this contradiction of proof we think that the
preponderance is in favor of the defendant's contention to the extent of the general order
being made known to the workmen. If so, the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing
himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as
its primary cause.

Distinction must be between the accident and the injury, between the event itself, without
which there could have been no accident, and those acts of the victim not entering into it,
independent of it, but contributing under review was the displacement of the crosspiece or
the failure to replace it. This produced the event giving occasion for damages — that is,
the sinking of the track and the sliding of the iron rails.

1. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. — In order to enforce the liability of an employer for