A railroad track of the Philippine National Railway (PNR) is located near a busy intersection of Puyat Avenue and Osmefia Highway. One afternoon, the intersection was heavily congested, as usual. Juan, the driver of a public utility jeepney (PUJ), drove onto the railroad tracks but could go no farther because of the heavy traffic at the intersection. After the jeepney stopped right on the railroad track, it was hit and overturned by a PNR train, resulting in the death of Kim, a passenger of the PUJ, and injuries to Juan and his other passengers. Juan, the injured passengers and Kim’s family sued the PNR for damages for its negligence. It was established that the steel pole barrier before the track was broken, and that the PNR had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident. On the other hand, the PNR raised the defense that the track is for the exclusive use of the train and that motorists are aware that it is negligence per se to stop their vehicles on the tracks. Decide the case and explain. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
PNR is liable for damages resulting from the collision. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, a party who has the last fair opportunity to avoid an impending injury is liable if it fails
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which party is held legally liable for a collision when both parties were negligent?
The party with the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident is solely responsible for the resulting harm.
Why is the Philippine National Railway liable for the collision despite Juan's negligence in stopping on the tracks?
PNR had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and failed to maintain its safety barrier.
What is the legal effect of a railroad company operating a busy railway intersection with a broken steel barrier?
Operating a busy railway intersection with a broken safety barrier constitutes actionable negligence.
Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, how does contributory negligence on the part of an injured party affect recovery?
Choices available with full access.
Which primary statute governs quasi-delict, negligence, and the mitigation of damages in the Philippines?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Last Clear Chance
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, where both parties are negligent, the party who has the last fair opportunity to avoid the impending harm by exercising reasonable diligence is held solely liable if it fails to do so. In railway collision cases, even if a motor vehicle driver negligently stops on the tracks due to traffic congestion, the railroad company remains liable under culpa aquiliana if its train driver observed or should have observed the stalled vehicle in time to stop the train and prevent the collision.
2. Railway Crossing Diligence
Under Philippine tort law and common carrier jurisprudence, a railroad company operates dangerous machinery and owes an indispensable duty of diligence to the general public to maintain safety devices at railway intersections. Operating a busy railway crossing with a broken or defective steel pole barrier constitutes negligence on the part of the railroad company. While motorists must exercise caution near tracks, the railroad company cannot claim immunity or exclusive right-of-way when its own failure to maintain safety barriers and exercise reasonable care directly contributes to a fatal collision.
3. Contributory Negligence Mitigation
Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act Number 386), where the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. However, if his negligence was merely contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the amount awarded. Even if a jeepney driver acts negligently, the railroad company that holds the last clear chance bears primary civil liability for damages.