Cangco v MRR GR L-12191 Ponente: Justice Fisher Facts: The plaintiff was an employee of Manila Railroad Company.

On a dark night, aboard one of the companys trains, as the train came near the station lighted only by a single light where he is supposed to go, he made his way to its exit. As the train slowed down, another employee of the company, got off the same car, alighting safely in the stations platforms. When the train had proceeded a little farther, the plaintiff stepped off also, but one or both of his feet stumbled upon a sack of watermelons placed upon some part of the platforms which resulted to his violent fall on the platforms. His right art was badly crushed and lacerated, which was eventually amputated. Hence, the plaintiff sued the defendant company, founding his action upon negligence of the servants and employees of the defendant in placing the sacks of melons upon the platform and leaving them so placed as to be a menace to the security of passenger alighting from the companys trains. However, the defendant responded that the plaintiff himself had failed to use due caution in alighting and was therefore precluded from recovering. Issue: Whether or not there is contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which would make the damages apportioned Held: In determining the question of contributory negligence in performing such act that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered. It may be noted that the place was perfectly familiar to the plaintiff as it was his daily custom to get on and of the train at this station. There could, therefore, be no uncertainty in his mind with regard either to the length of the step which he was required to take or the character of the platform where he was alighting. Our conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence. Furthermore, the plaintiff was possessed of the vigor and agility of young manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. (SEE DIGOY NOTES FOR THE TABLE)