STANDARD OF CONDUCT GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY

B. PERSONS WITH DISABILITY

THE UNITED STATES vs. BONIFACIO

FACTS:
Bonifacio was an engineer and was conducting the heavy freight train
one morning in Batangas. The train had just rounded a curve when
Bonifacio saw a man (EligioCastillo) walking along the railroad track. The
former immediately blew his whistle twice; unknown to him, Castillo was
a deaf-mute. Noticing that Castillo did not step aside from the track,
Bonifacio tried to slow down the engine, but did not succeed in
stopping in time to avoid running down the pedestrian, who, about that
time, turned and attempted to cross the track.
* He was travelling at the rate of 35 kilometers an hour, the maximum
speed permitted under the railroad regulations for freight trains.
Bonifacio was charged in the trial court with homicide committed with
reckless negligence and he was convicted of homicide committed with
simple negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bonifacio is liable for the death of Castillo.
HELD:
NO.

There is no obligation on an engine driver to stop, or even to slow down

his enginewhen he sees an adult pedestrian standing or walking on or
near the track, unlessthere is something in the appearance or conduct
of the person on foot which wouldcause a prudent man to anticipate
the possibility that such person could not, orwould not avoid the possibility
of danger by stepping aside. Ordinarily, all that mayproperly be required of
an engine driver under such circumstances is that he givewarning of his
approach, by blowing his whistle or ringing his bell until he is assuredthat the attention
of the pedestrian has been attracted to the oncoming train.
There was nothing in the appearance or conduct of the victim of the
accident in the cast at bar which would have warned the accused engine
driver that the man walking along the side of the tract was a deaf-mute,
and that despite the blowing of the whistle and the noise of the engine he
was unconscious of his danger. It was not until the pedestrian attempted
to cross the track, just in front of the train, that the accused had any
reason to believe that his warning signals had not been heard, and by that
time it was too late to avoid the accident. Under all the circumstances,
we are satisfied that the accused was without fault; and that the accident
must be attributed wholly to the reckless negligence of the deaf-mute, in
walking on the track without taking the necessary precautions to avoid
danger from a train approaching him from behind.
Bonifacio was without fault; and that the accident must be attributed
wholly to thereckless negligence of the deaf-mute, in walking on the track
without taking thenecessary precautions to avoid danger from a train
approaching him from behind.