Obligation Of The Carrier (Passenger)

Question 1

Who is a passenger? (Jesusa Vda. De Nueca v. The Manila Railroad Company)

Answer 1

One who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of contract, express or implied, with the carrier as to the payment of fare or that which is accepted as an equivalent thereof.

Question 2

Should there always be a fee for passenger? (Art. 1758)

Answer 2

A passenger is still considered as such even if he is being carried gratuitously or under a reduced fare.

Question 3

What are the rights of passengers in case of delay? (Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA; Art. 698 Code of Commerce)

Answer 3

Art. 698. In case a voyage already begun should be interrupted, the passenger shall be obliged to pay the fare in proportion to the distance covered, without right to recover losses and damages if the interruption is due to fortuitous event or force majeure…

But with a right to indemnity if the interruption should have been caused by the captain exclusively.

If the interruption should be caused by the disability of the vessel and a passenger should agree to await the repairs, he may not be required to pay any increased price of passage, but his living expenses during the stay shall be for his own account

**carrier is liable for any loss or damage, including pecuniary loss or loss of profit, which the passenger may have suffered by reason therof.

Question 4

Marina Regulation on delay. (Memorandum Circular No. 112)

Answer 4

In case the vessel is not able to depart on time and the delay is unreasonable, the passenger may opt to have his/ her ticket immediately refunded without any refund service fee from the authorized issuing ticketing Office.

Question 5

When is the commencement of duty in carriage of passengers?

Answer 5

Extraordinary responsibility of common carriers commences from the moment the person who purchase the ticket from the carrier presents himself at the proper place and in a proper manner to be transported with a bona fide intent to ride a coach.

Question 6

Whether the carrier should be liable to injury when it was caused by the sudden jerk of the vehicle while the passenger is attempting to board the same.(Dangwa Transportaion Co., Inc. v. CA)

Answer 6

The stopping of a bus is a continued offer to passengers to board the same. During this period, the bus driver should avoid acts that would imperil the safety of the passengers. [A] premature acceleration was a breach of such duty.

Question 7

In the event of a hijack, should the common carrier be liable? (Fortune Express, Inc. v. CA; Art. 1763)

Answer 7

When the death or injury to the passenger is caused by another passenger, the liability of the common carrier for damages depends on whether the employees exercised ordinary diligence.

Question 8

What is the standard diligence to be observed? (Art. 1755)

Answer 8

A common carrier is bound to carry the passenger 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 circumstance.

Question 9

What is the presumption in case of death of or injuries to passengers? (Art. 1756)

Answer 9

In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently…

UNLESS, they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Article 1733 and 1755.

Question 10

Who is liable for the acts of employees? (Art. 1759)

Answer 10

Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.

Question 11

Who is liable for acts of strangers and/ or third parties? (Art. 1763)

Answer 11

A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Question 12

Baggage?

Answer 12

Includes whatever articles a passenger usually with him for his own personal use, comfort, and convenience according ot the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs either with reference to his immediate necessities or to the ultimate purpose of his journey.

Question 13

Last Clear Chance Doctrine?

Answer 13

Where a a negligent defendant is held liable to a neglignt plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril…

If he aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.

Question 14

When is the Doctrine of Last Chance not applicable? (Philippine Rabbit Bus Line, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court)

Answer 14

The principle of “Last Clear Chance” applies in a suit a between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.

It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations.

For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.

Question 15

What is the degree of diligence when it comes to accomodated passengers/ invited guest? (Lara v. Valencia)

Answer 15

The rule is established by the weight of authority that the owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty to an ivied guest to exercise reasonable care in its operation, and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel. This rule, as frequently stated by the courts, is that an owner of an automobile. Since one riding in an automobile is no less a guest because he asked for the privilege of doing so, the same obligation of care is imposed upon the driver as in the case of one expressly invited to ride.

Question 16

What is the rationale of the liability of a common carrier, in the case where a manufacturing defect is the proximate cause of an accident? (Necessito v. Paras)

Answer 16

The rationale of the carrier’s liability is the fact that the passenger has neither choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier. Having no privity whatever with the manufacturer or vendor of the defective equipment, the passenger has no remedy against him, while the carrier usually has. It is but logical, therefore, that the carrier, while not an insurer of the safety of his passengers, should nevertheless be held to answer for the flaws of his equipment if such flaws were at all discoverable.

Question 17

Doctrine of “Assumption of Risk” (Japan Airlines v. Court of Appeals)

Answer 17

Passengers must take such risks incident to the mode of travel. Carriers are not insurers of the lives of their passengers.

Thus, in air travel, adverse weather conditions or extreme climactic changes are some of the perils involved in air travel, the consequences of which the passenger must assumer or expect.

Question 18

Whether a TIRE BLOW-OUT can be considered a caso fortuito such that it excuses the carrier from liability? (Yobido v. CA)

Answer 18

The explosion of a new tire may not be considered a fortuitous event. There are many human factors involved in the situation. The fact that the tire was new did not imply that it was entirely free from manufacturing defects or that it was properly mounted on the vehicle. Neither may the fact that the tire bought and used in the vehicle is of a brand name noted for quality, resulting in the conclusion that it could not explode within five day use.

Question 19

When does the assumption of risk does not apply? (Calalas v. Court of Appeals)

Answer 19

Passenger taking an “extension seat” does not amount to an implied assumption of risk. While it is true that being seater there place the passenger in greater peril.

It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passenger assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.

Question 20

When does the duty of extraordinary diligence ends?; Sea carriage (Aboitiz Shipping Corp. CA)

Answer 20

The relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed t the port of destination and has left the vessel owner’s dock or premises. The relationship will not ordinarily terminate until the passenger has, after reaching his destination, safely alighted from the carrier’s conveyance or had a reasonable opportunity to leave the carriers’s premises.

Question 21

Can the extraordinary responsibility required towards passengers lessened, by posting notice? (Art. 1757)

Answer 21

The responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers required in Art. 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statement on tickets, or otherwise.

Question 22

How about in the case of passengers carried gratuitously or under a reduced price? (Art. 1758)

Answer 22

When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence valid, but not for wilful acts or gross negligence.

The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability.

Question 23

Art. 1760

Answer 23

The common carrier’s responsibility prescribed in the preceding [to death and injuries of passengers] cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise.

Question 24

What is the effect of contributory negligence from passengers? (Art. 1762)

Answer 24

The contributory negligence of the passengers does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.