IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW Flashcards
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
A. General Principles of Common Carriers (Civil Code, art. 1732)
1. Common Carrier vs. Private Carrier
Based on obligations to public
Common Carriers vs. Private Carriers in the Philippines
The Philippine legal system distinguishes between common carriers and private carriers based on their business nature and obligations to the public.
A. Key Differences:
- Public vs. Private Service:
- Common Carrier:
Offers transportation services to the public as a whole. They are OBLIGATED to carry anyone willing to pay the fare, as long as space is available and no legal restrictions apply (e.g., exceeding weight limits). - Private Carrier:
Selects who they transport based on a specific agreement. They are not obligated to accept everyone and can have specific requirements for who they serve (e.g., transporting only company employees or having a minimum cargo amount).
- Common Carrier:
- Degree of Care:
- Common Carrier:
The law imposes a HIGHER DEGREE OF CARE on common carriers. They are PRESUMED to be negligent if passengers or goods are injured or lost during transport. They must prove they exercised “extraordinary diligence” (the utmost diligence of a very cautious person) to avoid the incident.
- Private Carrier:
Only has the obligation to exercise ordinary care (the diligence of a good father of a family) in handling passengers or goods. The burden of proof for negligence falls on the person filing the complaint. - Regulation:
- Common Carrier:
Subject to stricter government regulations to ensure passenger and cargo safety, fair pricing, and service standards. (e.g., Land Transportation Office (LTO) for land transport, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) for air transport)
- Private Carrier:
Generally subject to less government regulation, as their agreements are private contracts.
B) Similarities:
1. Compensation:
Both common and private carriers receive compensation for their transportation services.
2. Contractual Relationship:
Both types of carriers form a contract with the person or company using their services. However, the terms of the contract are more flexible for private carriers.
3. Duty of Care:
Both have a duty to care for the passengers or goods entrusted to them, though the degree of care differs.
- Current Jurisprudence Example:
Imagine a case (similar to G.R. No. 192321 - Spouses Teodoro Perena vs. Philippine National Railways) where a passenger gets injured while riding a train operated by the Philippine National Railways (PNR), a government-owned common carrier. - Common Carrier Analysis:
Since PNR is a common carrier, the passenger wouldn’t need to prove PNR’s negligence. The law presumes negligence, and the burden would shift to PNR to demonstrate they exercised “extraordinary diligence” to prevent the injury. - In Conclusion:
Common carriers have a greater public responsibility and face stricter regulations due to the nature of their business.
Private carriers have more flexibility in selecting clients but have a lower legal standard of care.
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
A. General Principles of Common Carriers (Civil Code, art. 1732)
- Diligence Required – Civil Code, art. 1733
Eod = utmost V & F, in case of inj Neg is Presmd
The Extraordinary Diligence Required of Common Carriers in the Philippines
The Philippines has a well-established legal principle requiring EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE from common carriers.
A.
What is Extraordinary Diligence?
* It goes beyond the “ordinary care” expected from a reasonable person.
* It requires common carriers to act with the utmost vigilance and foresight to ensure passenger safety and cargo security.
* The law presumes negligence if a passenger or cargo is injured or lost during transport, and the burden shifts to the carrier to prove they exercised extraordinary diligence.
B.
Key Points:
1. Stricter Standard:
Compared to “ordinary care,” extraordinary diligence sets a higher bar for common carriers.
2. Presumption of Negligence:
If something goes wrong, the law assumes the carrier was negligent. They must actively prove otherwise.
3. Adaptability to Circumstances:
The specific actions required for extraordinary diligence can vary depending on the situation (e.g., weather conditions, type of cargo).
- Real-World Examples:
Scenario 1: Bus Accident Due to Faulty Brakes - A bus company fails to properly maintain their vehicles, leading to faulty brakes and a passenger accident.
- Here, the bus company would likely be found negligent. They have a duty to inspect and maintain their vehicles regularly, which is crucial for ensuring passenger safety. Failing to do so falls short of the extraordinary diligence standard.
- Scenario 2: Package Theft from Airplane Cargo Hold
- A package containing valuable electronics goes missing during a domestic flight.
- The airline, as a common carrier, would need to demonstrate they had robust security measures in place at the airport and throughout the transport process. This might include CCTV footage, proper cargo handling procedures, and trained personnel. If they can’t show such measures, they might be found negligent.
- Current Jurisprudence Example:
In a case like G.R. No. 157917 - Spouses Teodoro Perena vs. Philippine National Railways, if a passenger is injured while riding a train, the burden would be on the Philippine National Railways (PNR) to prove they exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent the injury. - Remember:
- Passengers injured due to a common carrier’s negligence can potentially seek compensation.
- Common carriers should prioritize safety measures and invest in preventative actions to fulfill their extraordinary diligence obligation.
- Additional Notes:
This principle applies to various common carriers, including: - Public buses and jeepneys
- Trains
- Airplanes
- ships
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
A. General Principles of Common Carriers (Civil Code, art. 1732)
- Vigilance over Goods – Civil Code, arts. 1744-1754
EOD
Exc agreemnt only as to amt of liab not liab itself
Key Points on Carrier’s Vigilance Over Goods in Philippine Transportation Law (Articles 1744-1754)
These articles establish the legal framework for a common carrier’s DUTY OF VIGILANCE over transported goods in the Philippines.
- Extraordinary Diligence is the Baseline:
* The law imposes a high standard on common carriers. They must exercise EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in safeguarding the goods entrusted to them (Article 1744). This goes beyond “ordinary care” and requires proactive measures to prevent loss, damage, or deterioration. - Limited Liability Agreements:
* Shippers and carriers can agree to limit the carrier’s FINANCIAL LIABILITY for loss or damage, provided certain conditions are met (Article 1744):- The agreement must be IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE SHIPPER, and supported by VALUABLE CONSIDERATION (something of value beyond just the transport service).
- The limitation must be reasonable, just, and not against public policy (Article 1745).
- Unreasonable Limitations:
* Certain attempts to limit liability are ILLEGAL (Article 1745):- Completely absolving the carrier of responsibility (e.g., stating “no liability for lost goods”).
- Failing to exercise any DILIGENCE in safeguarding the goods.
- Shielding the carrier from EMPLOYEE NEGLIGENCE.
- Avoiding liability for losses due to DEFECTIVE VEHICLES or EQUIPMENT.
- Shipper Coercion:
* A carrier CANNOT FORCE a shipper to accept limited liability as a condition of transport (Article 1746). The shipper has a right to choose a carrier offering standard (extraordinary diligence) terms. - Breaches of Contract:
* If the carrier BREACHES the transport CONTRACT, limitations on liability become void (Article 1747). This includes unjustified delays or changing routes without agreement. - Specific Limitations are Allowed:
* Limited liability for DELAYS due to strikes or riots** can be included in the agreement (Article 1748).
* Limiting liability to the DECLARED VALUE of the goods is acceptable, provided the shipper has the option to declare a higher value (Article 1749). - Fair Agreements Upheld:
* Mutually agreed-upon fixed compensation for loss or damage can be valid if it’s fair and reasonable under the circumstances (Article 1750). - Market Competition Considered:
* The absence of competition on a specific route might influence whether a limitation clause is considered fair (Article 1751).
* Less competition could give the carrier an unfair advantage. - Presumption of Negligence:
* Even with a limitation agreement, the law presumes the carrier was negligent if goods are lost or damaged (Article 1752). The carrier can rebut this presumption by proving they exercised extraordinary diligence. - International Transportation:
* For international shipments, the laws of the destination country might govern the carrier’s liability (Article 1753).
- Current Event Example:
Imagine a news report about numerous LOST OR DAMAGED PACKAGES during the recent holiday rush. Shippers might file claims against the delivery companies (common carriers) alleging a lack of vigilance over the goods. - The carrier could argue they had limitations of liability agreements in place.
- However, the courts would scrutinize the agreements** to ensure they comply with the legal requirements (written, signed, reasonable, etc.).
- Additionally, if the SHEER VOLUME OF LOST PACKAGES suggests a systemic issue with handling procedures, the PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE might be difficult for the carrier to overcome, even with limitations of liability.
- Remember:
- Understanding these regulations helps both shippers and carriers manage risk and expectations during the transportation process.
- Shippers should carefully review any limitation of liability agreements before signing.
- Carriers must prioritize secure handling procedures and invest in measures to minimize loss or damage to maintain customer trust.
By adhering to these principles, the Philippine transportation industry can strive for efficiency and protect the interests of both shippers and carriers.
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
A. General Principles of Common Carriers (Civil Code, art. 1732)
- Safety of Passengers – Civil Code, arts. 1755-1763
Mand EOD
Pres of N
Unenf Lim
Ltd exc for Liab - only in free rides
EmpR liab for EmpE actions
Key Points on Passenger Safety and Carrier’s Duty (Articles 1755-1763)
These articles outline the legal framework for a common carrier’s duty to ensure passenger safety in the Philippines. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and how they apply in real-world scenarios:
- Extraordinary Diligence is Mandatory:
* The law imposes a high standard on common carriers (buses, trains, airplanes, etc.). They must exercise extraordinary diligence to safeguard passengers (Article 1755). This goes beyond “ordinary care” and requires proactive measures to prevent passenger death or injury. - Presumption of Negligence:
* If a passenger is injured or dies during transport, the law presumes the carrier was negligent (Article 1756). The burden of proof shifts to the carrier to demonstrate they exercised extraordinary diligence. - Unenforceable Limitations:
* Carriers cannot use disclaimers (notices, ticket statements) to limit their liability for passenger safety (Article 1757). Passenger safety is a top priority. - Limited Exceptions:
* For free rides (not purchased tickets), carriers can limit liability for negligence (not willful acts or gross negligence) through agreements (Article 1758). However, offering a discount cannot justify reduced liability. - Carrier Liable for Employee Actions:
* Carriers are responsible for passenger injuries caused by employee negligence or willful acts, even if the employee acted outside their scope of duties (Article 1759). The carrier cannot escape liability by claiming they carefully selected and supervised employees.
* Disclaimers cannot limit this liability (Article 1760). - Passenger Responsibility:
* Passengers also have a duty to exercise reasonable care (diligence of a good father of a family) to avoid injury (Article 1761). - Contributory Negligence:
* If a passenger’s own negligence contributes to their injury, they can still recover damages, but the compensation amount might be reduced (Article 1762). The carrier’s negligence must still be the primary cause (proximate cause) of the injury. - Carrier’s Duty to Intervene:
* Carriers are responsible for preventing injuries caused by other passengers or strangers if their employees could have reasonably foreseen and stopped the harmful act (Article 1763). This requires active supervision and intervention when necessary.
- Current Event Example:
Imagine news reports about a passenger falling and injuring themselves due to a defective escalator in a train station. - The train company (common carrier) would likely be found negligent. They have a duty to maintain their stations in a safe condition (extraordinary diligence).
- Even if the passenger wasn’t paying close attention (not exercising reasonable care), the defective escalator would likely be seen as the primary cause of the injury.
- Remember:
- Understanding these regulations is crucial for both passengers and carriers.
- Passengers should be aware of their rights and take reasonable precautions.
- Carriers must prioritize passenger safety by investing in proper maintenance, training staff, and implementing measures to prevent incidents.
- By adhering to these principles, the Philippine transportation industry can enhance passenger safety and public trust.
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
A. General Principles of Common Carriers (Civil Code, art. 1732)
- Sources of Liability
CC liable for acts of Employees (or Strangers if it could have been prevented by staff eg throwing stone) against PASSENGER
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
B. The Montreal Convention
1. Applicability
Int treat for liability when inj death happened int flights
The Montreal Convention (MC99) is an international treaty that governs airline liability for passenger injury or death during international flights.
The Philippines ratified the Convention in 2015, making it applicable in Philippine courts for international air travel.
This means passengers may be entitled to compensation under the Convention’s rules, which can be more favourable than domestic laws.
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
B. The Montreal Convention
- Extent of Liability of Air Carrier
a. Passenger
b. Baggage
c. Limitations to Liability
The Montreal Convention and Air Carrier Liability in the Philippines
The Montreal Convention (MC99) sets a framework for airline liability regarding passengers and baggage on international flights, applicable in the Philippines. Here’s a breakdown:
A.
Passenger:
- Extent of Liability:
Airlines are subject to strict liability for passenger injury or death occurring during international carriage (boarding, flight, disembarking). This means the passenger doesn’t need to prove negligence by the airline.
- Limitations of Liability:
The Convention sets a maximum compensation amount per passenger (around 100,000 SDRs, a special drawing right), unless the airline proves they took all necessary measures to avoid the damage or were unable to do so (Article 21).
Example:
A passenger on a flight from Manila to London experiences turbulence and suffers a head injury. The Montreal Convention would likely apply, and the passenger could seek compensation for medical bills and lost wages, without proving the airline’s negligence. However, the compensation would be capped at the Montreal Convention limit (around 128, 821 SDRs) unless the airline is found to be intentionally reckless.
B.
Baggage:
- Extent of Liability:
Airlines are liable for destruction, loss, or damage to checked baggage. For unchecked baggage (like a personal bag you keep with you), liability applies only if the airline is proven negligent.
- Limitations of Liability:
The Convention sets a lower limit of liability for checked baggage (around 1,000 SDRs per passenger) unless a higher value is declared for an additional fee (Article 22).
Example:
A passenger flying from Cebu to Dubai has their checked suitcase lost during the trip. The Montreal Convention would apply, and the airline would be liable for the suitcase’s contents, even if not negligent. However, the compensation would be capped at around 1,000 SDRs unless the passenger declared a higher value beforehand.
- Remember:
- The Montreal Convention offers a baseline for compensation and can be more favorable to passengers than domestic laws.
- Passengers should still consider travel insurance for potential coverage exceeding the Convention’s limits.
- Airlines may offer additional liability options for baggage by allowing passengers to declare a higher value for a fee.
IV. TRANSPORTATION LAW
B. The Montreal Convention
- Liability for Delay
-
Definition of Delay:
- Delay refers to the failure to transport passengers or cargo within the agreed-upon schedule or within a reasonable time if no schedule is specified.
-
Conditions for Liability:
- The Montreal Convention provides for liability when delay occurs in the carriage of passengers, baggage, or cargo by air, unless the carrier proves that it and its servants or agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the delay or that it was impossible to take such measures.
-
Compensation for Delay:
- Passengers or cargo owners affected by delay may be entitled to compensation for damages incurred due to the delay, such as additional expenses, missed connections, or lost opportunities.
Example Illustration:
Scenario: Sarah books a flight from Manila to New York with a layover in Hong Kong. Due to a mechanical issue with the aircraft in Manila, the flight is delayed by 8 hours, causing Sarah to miss her connecting flight from Hong Kong to New York.
Explanation:
According to The Montreal Convention, Sarah may be entitled to compensation for the delay. The airline is liable unless it can prove that the delay was unavoidable despite taking all reasonable measures. Sarah can claim compensation for expenses incurred due to the delay, such as overnight accommodation in Hong Kong, missed business appointments in New York, and additional transportation costs.
Understanding these key points ensures that passengers and cargo owners are aware of their rights under The Montreal Convention regarding liability for delay in air travel, promoting transparency and accountability in the aviation industry.
MCQ on Carrier’s Vigilance Over Goods (Philippine Law)
Scenario: During the recent holiday season, a surge in online shopping led to numerous reports of lost or damaged packages delivered by ABC Delivery Services (a common carrier). Several customers filed complaints alleging negligence. ABC Delivery claims they have limitations of liability agreements signed by the customers.
Instructions: Choose the BEST answer and explain your reasoning based on the relevant Philippine law articles (1744-1754).
Question: In light of the customer complaints, ABC Delivery can most likely rely on their limitation of liability agreements if:
A. The agreements were printed on the back of the delivery receipts and customers signed without reading them.
B. The agreements limited ABC Delivery’s liability only for delays caused by strikes.
C. The agreements were clearly written, signed by the customers, and offered a discounted rate for lower liability coverage.
D. The agreements stated that ABC Delivery would not be responsible for loss due to theft by employees.
Answer: C. The agreements were clearly written, signed by the customers, and offered a discounted rate for lower liability coverage.
Legal Reasoning:
- Article 1744 allows limitations of liability agreements, but they must meet specific requirements:
- In writing and signed by the shipper (customers in this case).
- Supported by valuable consideration (discounted rate for lower coverage qualifies).
- Reasonable, just, and not against public policy.
- Option A fails because the customer should have a fair chance to understand the agreement before signing.
- Option B fails because Article 1748 allows limited liability for strikes/riots, but other limitations might be unreasonable.
- Option D fails because Article 1745 prohibits clauses exempting the carrier from employee negligence.
Even with a valid agreement (Option C), the outcome remains uncertain:
- Article 1752 creates a presumption of negligence on the carrier’s part if goods are lost or damaged.
- ABC Delivery would need to prove they exercised extraordinary diligence (Article 1733) to overcome this presumption.
- The sheer volume of lost packages might suggest systemic issues with handling procedures, making it difficult to prove extraordinary diligence.
Conclusion:
Understanding these legal principles is crucial for both shippers and carriers. Shippers should review limitation agreements carefully, and carriers must prioritize secure handling procedures to minimize loss and protect their reputation.
MCQ #2 on Carrier’s Vigilance Over Goods (Philippine Law)
Scenario: A delivery truck owned by XYZ Cargo (a common carrier) was involved in a road accident while transporting furniture for Ms. Reyes. The accident resulted in significant damage to Ms. Reyes’ furniture. XYZ Cargo claims they are not liable because the contract included a limitation of liability clause.
Question: Is XYZ Cargo likely to be successful in arguing limited liability in this scenario?
A. Yes, limitation clauses are always valid in Philippine law.
B. Yes, if the limitation clause was properly signed and Ms. Reyes did not declare a higher value for the furniture.
C. No, common carriers cannot limit liability for damages caused by accidents.
D. No, unless XYZ Cargo can prove they were not negligent in causing the accident.
Answer: D. No, unless XYZ Cargo can prove they were not negligent in causing the accident.
Legal Reasoning:
- Article 1744 allows limitations of liability agreements, but there are limitations (see previous MCQ).
- Article 1745 prohibits clauses exempting the carrier from liability due to their actions or omissions (unreasonable limitation).
Even with a signed agreement:
- Article 1752 creates a presumption of negligence on the carrier’s part if goods are lost or damaged during transport.
- XYZ Cargo must overcome this presumption by proving extraordinary diligence (Article 1733). This means demonstrating they took all reasonable precautions to prevent the accident.
Conclusion:
The burden of proof falls on XYZ Cargo. If they cannot establish they exercised extraordinary diligence (e.g., proper vehicle maintenance, driver training, following traffic rules), the limitation clause might be unenforceable, and they could be held liable for the damaged furniture.
MCQ #3 on Carrier’s Vigilance Over Goods (Philippine Law)
Scenario: Ms. Lopez is sending a valuable antique vase through LMN Air (a common carrier) and is offered two options:
- Option 1: Standard liability coverage (extraordinary diligence) at a higher shipping cost.
- Option 2: Lower liability coverage with a limited liability clause, at a significantly cheaper rate.
Question: What should Ms. Lopez consider when deciding between the two shipping options offered by LMN Air?
A. Option 1 is always the better choice, as limitation clauses are never enforceable.
B. Option 2 is preferable because it’s cheaper, and Ms. Lopez can always sue LMN Air if the vase is lost.
C. Ms. Lopez should choose based on the value of the vase and her risk tolerance.
D. LMN Air cannot offer different levels of liability coverage; they must provide extraordinary diligence for all shipments.
Answer: C. Ms. Lopez should choose based on the value of the vase and her risk tolerance.
Legal Reasoning:
- Article 1744 allows limitations of liability agreements if they meet specific requirements.
- Option 2 offers a valid choice under the law, but the specific limitations need to be reviewed for reasonableness (Article 1745).
Factors to Consider:
- Value of the Vase: If the vase is very valuable, the higher coverage of Option 1 might be worth the extra cost.
- Risk Tolerance: Ms. Lopez should consider her comfort level with potential loss. Is a potential lawsuit (Option 2) worth the lower cost?
LMN Air’s Options are Legal:
- Philippine law allows carriers to offer different liability coverage options (Article 1749 on declared value).
- Ms. Lopez has the right to choose the option that best suits her needs.
Conclusion:
Understanding these principles empowers Ms. Lopez to make an informed decision. The choice depends on the value of the item and her willingness to accept potential risks associated with a lower liability option.
MCQ 1 on Montreal Convention and Air Carrier Liability (Philippines)
Scenario: Maria booked a flight from Davao to Los Angeles with Philippine Airlines. During the flight, she experienced severe turbulence and fractured her arm. Maria seeks compensation from Philippine Airlines for her medical bills.
Question: Under the Montreal Convention, can Maria claim compensation for her injury without proving negligence by Philippine Airlines?
A. Yes, because the Montreal Convention imposes strict liability on airlines for passenger injuries.
B. No, Maria must first prove that Philippine Airlines acted negligently and caused her injury.
C. It depends on the specific cause of the turbulence. Maria can only claim if the airline caused it.
D. The Montreal Convention does not apply in the Philippines.
Answer: A. Yes, because the Montreal Convention imposes strict liability on airlines for passenger injuries.
Legal Basis:
- Article 21 of the Montreal Convention establishes strict liability for airlines regarding passenger injury or death during international carriage. This means Maria does not need to prove that Philippine Airlines was negligent.
Reasoning:
The scenario describes an international flight, and the Philippines ratified the Montreal Convention. Therefore, Maria can potentially claim compensation for her injury based on the Convention’s principles.
MCQ #2 on Montreal Convention and Air Carrier Liability (Philippines)
Scenario: Mark is flying from Clark to Singapore with PAL Express (PAL). Upon arrival, Mark discovers his checked luggage containing his expensive camera equipment is missing. He files a complaint with PAL.
Question: What is the maximum compensation Mark can expect from PAL under the Montreal Convention, assuming he did not declare a higher value for his baggage?
A. The full value of his camera equipment, regardless of its worth.
B. The replacement cost of his camera equipment, with proof of purchase.
C. Around 1,000 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), the limit for unchecked baggage.
D. Around 100,000 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), the limit for passenger injury.
Answer: C. Around 1,000 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), the limit for unchecked baggage.
Legal Basis:
- Article 22 of the Montreal Convention sets a lower limit of liability for checked baggage (around 1,000 SDRs per passenger).
- The scenario describes checked luggage, but strict liability only applies in this case because Mark did not declare a higher value for his belongings.
Reasoning:
To receive compensation exceeding the limit, Mark would have needed to declare a higher value for his checked luggage and pay an additional fee. Since he didn’t, the lower limit of liability applies.
Maria books a flight from Manila to London with a layover in Dubai. Due to an unexpected technical issue, her flight from Manila is delayed by 10 hours, causing her to miss her connecting flight in Dubai. The airline claims they took all necessary measures to avoid the delay. Which of the following statements is most accurate under The Montreal Convention?
A) Maria is not entitled to any compensation because technical issues are always considered unavoidable.
B) Maria is entitled to compensation unless the airline can prove that the delay was unavoidable despite taking all reasonable measures.
C) Maria is automatically entitled to compensation regardless of the airline’s actions.
D) Maria can only claim compensation if the delay exceeds 12 hours.
Answer: B) Maria is entitled to compensation unless the airline can prove that the delay was unavoidable despite taking all reasonable measures.
Legal Reasoning: Under The Montreal Convention, airlines are liable for delays unless they can prove that they and their agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the delay or that it was impossible to take such measures. Technical issues do not automatically exempt the airline from liability; they must demonstrate that the delay was unavoidable despite their efforts.
Question 2:
Juan is traveling from Cebu to Tokyo with a stopover in Seoul. Due to severe weather conditions, his flight from Cebu is delayed by 6 hours, causing him to miss his connecting flight in Seoul. The airline provides accommodation and meals during the delay but does not offer compensation for missed business meetings in Tokyo. Under The Montreal Convention, what is Juan entitled to?
A) Compensation for missed business meetings in Tokyo, as the airline is always liable for delays.
B) No compensation, as severe weather conditions are beyond the airline’s control.
C) Compensation for missed business meetings only if the delay exceeds 8 hours.
D) Compensation for accommodation and meals, but not for missed business meetings, as the airline took reasonable measures to mitigate the delay’s impact.
Answer: D) Compensation for accommodation and meals, but not for missed business meetings, as the airline took reasonable measures to mitigate the delay’s impact.
Legal Reasoning: Under The Montreal Convention, airlines are liable for delays unless they can prove that the delay was unavoidable despite taking all reasonable measures. Severe weather conditions are generally considered beyond the airline’s control. However, the airline’s provision of accommodation and meals demonstrates that they took reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the delay. Therefore, Juan is entitled to compensation for the immediate expenses incurred due to the delay but not for consequential damages like missed business meetings.
