TEH LE KIM, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO., INC., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This
is an appeal taken by the plaintiff Teh Le Kim from the judgment
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, absolving the
defendant Philippine Aerial Taxi Co., Inc., from the complaint, which
was dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

In
support of his appeal, the appellant assigns five alleged errors as
committed by the trial court, which we shall discuss in the course of
this decision.

The following facts have been proven by a preponderance of evidence presented during the trial, to wit:

On the morning of September 4, 1931, the plaintiff herein bought, in
Manila, a passenger ticket for a flight to Iloilo in one of the
defendant company’s hydroplanes starting from Madrigal Field in Pasay.
Inasmuch as the engine of the plane Mabuhay, in which he was
to make the flight, was not working Satisfactorily, the said plaintiff
had to wait for some time. While the engine was being tested, the
plaintiff saw how it was started by turning the propeller repeatedly
and how the man who did it ran away from it each time in order not to
be caught by the said propeller. Before the plane Mabuhay was put in condition for the flight, the plane Taal
arrived and it was decided to have the plaintiff make the flight
therein. The plaintiff and his companion were carefully carried from
the beach to the plane, entering the same by the rear or tail end, and
were placed in their seats to which they were strapped. Later, they
were shown how the straps could be tightened or loosened in case of
accident and were instructed further not to touch anything in the
plane. After an uneventful flight, the plane landed on the waters of
Guimaras Strait, in front of Iloilo, and taxied toward the beach until
its pontoons struck bottom, when the plane stopped. The pilot shut off
the gasoline feed pipe, permitting the engine, however, to continue to
function until all the gasoline was drained from the feed pipe and
carburetor. This operation was necessary in accordance with the
established practice of aviation in order to avoid danger of fire which
would exist if the pipes and carburetor remained full of gasoline, and
to prevent the sudden cooling of the engine which might cause serious
damage, especially to the valves.

When the pilot observed that a banca was approaching rapidly on the right hand side of the plane, he arose signalled and shouted to the boatman to keep his banca at a distance from the plane, inasmuch as there were waves and quite a strong current, and he feared that the banca,
which had a high prow, might collide with the plane and damage either
the wing or the pontoon thereof. While he was doing this, he heard the
propeller strike something. He immediately turned off the switch and,
looking on the other side, he saw Bohn picking up the plaintiff out of
the water.

What really happened was that at the moment the pontoons touched bottom and while the pilot was signalling to the banca,
the plaintiff unfastened the straps around him and, not even waiting to
put on his hat, climbed over the door to the lower wing, went down the
ladder to the pontoon and walked along the pontoon toward the revolving
propeller. The propeller first grazed his forehead and, as he threw up
his arm, it was caught by the revolving blades thereof and so injured
that it had to be amputated.

Bohn and Garrett of Warner,
Barnes & Co., consignees of the defendant in Iloilo, were on the
beach to meet the plane and to make arrangements for the disembarking
of the passengers. Upon seeing the plaintiff walking toward the
propeller, they shouted frantically and motioned to him to keep away
from it, but the said plaintiff took no heed of them.

The
usual procedure in discharging passengers from a hydroplane is to wait
until the propeller stops, then turn the plane around by hand so as to
have the rear or tail and thereof towards the beach, and then take the
passengers to shore in a banca. The pilot in charge of the
plane has had fourteen years experience, having first learned to fly
during the World War. He is duly licensed by the Department of Commerce
of the United States and by the Department of Commerce and
Communications of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

The only question to decide in this appeal, which is raised in the
first assignment of error, is whether or not the defendant entity has
complied with its contractual obligation to carry the
plaintiff-appellant Teh Le Kim safe and sound to his destination.

The contract entered into by the plaintiff Teh Le Kim and the defendant
entity Philippine Aerial Taxi Co., Inc., was that upon payment of the
price of the passage, which the carrier had received, the latter would
carry the former by air in one of its hydroplanes and put him, safe and
sound, on the beach at Iloilo. After an uneventful flight, the
hydroplane, which carried the plaintiff and his companion, arrived at
the Iloilo beach, as usual, with nothing more left to do but to take
the plaintiff and his companion, safe and sound, ashore. In order to do
this, it was necessary to wait for the propeller to stop, turn the rear
or tail end of the plane towards the shore, take the passengers out by
the aforesaid rear or tail end thereof, place them in a banca
and take them ashore. By sheer common sense, the plaintiff ought to
know that a propeller, be it that of a ship or of an aeroplane, is
dangerous while in motion and that to approach it is to run the risk of
being caught and injured thereby. He ought to know furthermore that
inasmuch as the plane was on the water, he had to wait for a banca
to take him ashore. Notwithstanding the shouts and warning signals
given him from the shore by the representatives of the consignee firm,
the plaintiff herein, not being a man of ordinary prudence, hastily
left the cabin of the plane, walked along one of the pontoons and
directly into the revolving propeller, while the banca which
was to take him ashore was still some distance away and the pilot was
instructing the boatman to keep it at a safe distance from the plane.
Under such circumstances, it is not difficult to understand that the
plaintiff-appellant acted with reckless negligence in approaching the
propeller while it was still in motion, and when the banca
was not yet in a position to take him. That the plaintiff-appellant’s
negligence alone was the direct cause of the accident, is so clear that
it is not necessary to cite authoritative opinions to support the
conclusion that the injury to his right arm and the subsequent
amputation, thereof were due entirely and exclusively to his own
imprudence and not to the slightest negligence attributable to the
defendant entity or to its agents. Therefore, he alone should suffer
the consequences of his act.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the judgment appealed from, it is hereby affirmed in toto, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.