Martinez vs Van Buskirk: Facts: 11th day of September 1908, plaintiff, Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding in a carromata

onCalle Real, district of Ermita, city of Manila, P.I., along the lefthand side of the street as she wasgoing, when a delivery wagon belonging to the defendandt used for the purpose of transportationof fodder by the defendant, and to which was attached a pair of horses, came along the street inthe opposite direction to that in which said plaintiff was proceeding, and that thereupon thedriver of said plaintiffs carromata, observing that the delivery wagon of the defendant wascoming at great speed, crowded close to the sidewalk on the left-hand side of the street andstopped, in order to give defendants delivery wagon an opportunity to pass by, but that insteadof passing by the defendants wagon and horses ran into the carrmoata occupied by said plaintiff with her child and overturned it, severely wounding said plaintiff by making a serious cut uponher head, and also injuring the carromata itself and the harness upon the horse which wasdrawing it.Defendant presented evidence to the effect that the cochero, who was driving his delivery wagonat the time the accident occurred, was a good servant and was considered a safe and reliablecochero; that on for purpose of delivery, the cochero driving the team as defendants employeetied the driving lines of the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon, and then went back inside of the wagon for the purpose of unloading the forage to be delivered; that while unloadingthe forage and in the act of carrying some of it out, another vehicle drove by, the driver of whichcracked a whip and made some other noises, which frightened the horses attached to the deliverywagon and they ran away and the driver was thrown from the inside of the wagon out throughthe rear upon the ground and was unable to stop the horses; that the horses then ran up to CalleHerran to Calle Real, which they turned up and on which street they came into collision with thecarromatta, in which the plaintiff, Carmen de Martinez was riding.Carmen Ong de Martinez with his husband filed a case against the cuchero and its employer Court of first instance saw the case in favor of the appellee/plaintiff and found that the defendantwas guilty of negligence and a judgemenet of Php 442.50 with interest of 6% per annum Issue: Whether or not there was negligence on the part of the cuchero thus the accident.Whether or not the employer has liability on the case. Held: Judgment is reversed.There was no negligence on the part of the cuchero and there is also no liability on the employer as well.

Ratio Decidendi Art. 1902 states: A person who by an act or ommision causes damage to another when there isfault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so doneArt 1903 states: The obligation imposed by the preceding article is demandable not only for personal acts and omission, but also for those of the persons for whom they should beresponsible.Regarding Art. 1902, negligence was not proved because of the following grounds: That the cochero was experienced and capable, the horses on the other hand are gentleand tractable and that the cochero has driven one of the horses for a year and the other one for 6 months but no accident occurred. It has become a custom for all cocheros to leavethe horses as they were during theincident to help carry the loads off the wagon. This was allowed because it was beneficialto the businessmen. The performance was not proved to be destructive or injurious and which have, therefore, been acquiesced in by society for so long a time that they have ripened into custom, cannot be held of themselves unreasonable and imprudent That the act of not tying the horses, which resulted to an injury, is in itself not negligence.The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because it only creates a prima facie evidenceRegarding Art 1903, it was also not proved thus the employer is not liable on the ff ground: Neligence of the cochero was not proved thus art 1903 does not apply against theemployer