Liabilities of common carriers Flashcards
Who is liable in case of breach of contract of carriage? The operator or the driver or both?
If the cause of action is based on a breach of a contract of carriage, the liability of the owner/operator is direct as the contract is between him and the passenger. The driver cannot be made liable as he is not a party to the contract of carriage.
The driver, however, may be sued based on quasi-delict and/or criminally if his negligence can be established.
Are common carriers liable for injuries to passengers even if they have observed ordinary diligence and care? Explain.
Yes, common carriers are liable to injuriesto passengers even if the they observed ordinary diligence and care because the obligation imposed upon them by law is to exercise extraordinary diligence.
Common carriers are bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with a due regard for all the circumstances.
Is the presumption of fault or negligence applicable only in case of death or injury to passengers or loss or damage to goods?
No, it also applies in case of any breach in the contract of carriage, such as when the passenger was not able to board despite being given a boarding pass. Thus, when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If that does not happen, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. In an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All he has to prove is
the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier, through the latter’s failure to carry the passenger to its destination.18
X Company loaded six (6) metric tons of Soybean Meal on board
the vessel M/V “Sea Dream” at the Port of U.S.A., for delivery
to the Port of Manila to Simon Enterprises, Inc., as consignee.
When the vessel arrived in Manila,the shipmentwas discharged
to the receiving barges of the arrastre operator. Consignee
later received the shipment but claimed having received only
five (5) metric tons of Soybean Meal. Are the common carrier
and arrastre operator liable for the shortage?
No. Though itistrue thatcommoncarriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods transported
by them are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, and that the common
carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order
to overcome the presumption, the plaintiff must still, before the
burden is shifted to the defendant, prove that the subject shipment
suffered actual shortage. This can only be done if the weight of the
shipment at the port of origin and its subsequent weight at the port
of arrival are proven by a preponderance of evidence, and it can be
seen that the former weight is considerably greater than the latter
weight, taking into consideration the exceptions provided in Article
1734 of the Civil Code.62
