Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil.

657)

Principle:

In a passenger-operator relationship wherein there was an accident, either due

to negligence of the driver or mechanical malfunction. The cause of action to be filed
against the operator is not based on tort or quasi-delict. The cause of action must rest
on the defendants breach of contract of carriage or culpa-contractual.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a tort case against Frank Smith defendant to recover damages
due to physical injuries sustained.

Frank Smith is an owner of a business engaged in carrying passengers. One

day1 when plaintiffs were on board of one of Frank Smiths vehicles, they met an
accident due to a vehicular malfunction.

Frank Defendent himself by arguing that there was no defect in his

automobile. He opined that the accident was due to an excessive speed which led to
blaming the driver. He also argued that what happened was due to a fortuitous event,
which cannot be controlled.

Issue:

- Whether the cause of action of tort is the proper remedy against the operator
- Whether was an unforeseeable event which led to an accident which would
consequently free the defendant from liability.

Ruling:

First issue.
The Liability of the defendant is contractual, hence, the case of tort is not the
proper remedy, the cause of action should be based on culpa contractual.

Second Issue.

Breach of contract was not also due to the fortuitous event.

As defined Caso Fortuito is an event that takes place by accident and could
not have been foreseen.

Essential characteristics of Caso Fortuito is 1) The cause of the unforeseen

and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his
obligation must be independent from the human will; 2) It must be impossible to
foresee the event or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; 3) The
occurrence must be such as to render impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner 4) Debtor must be free from any participation in
the aggravation of the injury.
In this case, it cannot be concluded that there was a fortuitous event that arouse since
the accident was due to a vehicle mechanic malfunction, which was avoidable. It
cannot also be concluded that there was no participation to the aggravation of the
injury since, the vehicle malfunction was due tot the negligence of the operator to
check for the safety of the passengers. Therefore, this calls for a suggestion that the
event was due to force majeure.