Jerahmeel U.

Cuevas
Chapman v. Underwood
G.R. No. L-9010 March 28, 1914

Facts:
A car driven by defendant's chauffeur ran over plaintiff. In this case, defendant was following
a street car. Said street car then took the switch and went left. Defendant’s driver no longer followed
the car and went straight ahead. However, by going straight ahead, they are going the wrong way
Plaintiff wanted to board a street car coming from his right side. Since defendant went
straight ahead to the wrong way, they ran over plaintiff. Court decided that plaintiff was not obliged to
observe his left side since the flow of traffic comes from his right side. Further, defendant was going
the wrong way. Defendant was held liable by the lower court
Issue:
WoN defendant is guilty for the acts of his chauffeur
Held:
No. An owner who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle, and permits his driver to continue
in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had reasonable opportunity
to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such
acts.
In this case, the negligent act of the chauffeur was instantaneous. It did not give defendant
sufficient time to correct the act of his driver. It appears with fair clearness that the interval between
the turning out to meet and pass the street car and the happening of the accident was so small as not to
be sufficient to charge defendant with the negligence of the driver. The act complained of must be
continued in the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner, by his acquiescence,
makes his driver's act his own.
Reaction:

I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case. Usually, the employers are held
liable by virtue of the vicarious liability under our laws, however, this case gives an instance where
such is not applicable. If the act was sudden, wherein the employer could not have prevented the act,
vicarious liability does not attach. The liability attaches when there is ample time for the employer to
correct his driver. This ruling protects the employers from acts they themselves would not have done.
A person cannot be faulted for something he cannot possibly prevent.
However, this can create a situation wherein the victim would have difficulties getting
indemnified in case the employee does not have enough property for it because usually these drivers
or employees are not that well off.