Safety of Passengers Flashcards
What is the diligence required for common carriers in the carriage of its passengers?
A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard to all the circumstances. In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence.
In a court case involving claims for damages arising from death and injury of bus passengers, counsel for the bus operator filed a demurrer to evidence arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not submit any evidence that the operator or its employees were negligent. If you were the judge, would you dismiss the complaint?
No. In the carriage of passengers, the failure of the common carrier to bring the passengers safely to their destination immediately raises the presumption that such failure is due to the carrier’s fault or negligence. It is not the burden of the aggrieved passenger to establish such fault or negligence. The carrier instead must rebut such presumption. Otherwise, the conclusion can be properly made that the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law.
Cite stipulations that are considered void in a contract of carriage for passengers.
a. Stipulation where the responsibility of the common carrier for the safety of its passengers is dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the ticket, or otherwise.”
b. Stipulation limiting the liability for willful acts or gross negligence.”
When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross negligence.
The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability.
A and his classmates take a bus from UP to Quiapo. On the way, another Quiapo-bound bus tries to overtake them. A and his classmates dare the bus driver to run faster and race with the other bus. The driver takes their dare, to the delight of A and his friends who cheered him. On rounding the curve, the bus driver fails to slow down and the bus turns turtle, resulting
in the death of A and injuries to the other passengers. The bus carried the following sign: “Do not talk to driver while bus is on motion, otherwise the company will not assume liability for any accident.” Explain briefly the extent of the liability, if any, of the bus company, giving the legal provisions and principles involved.
The bus company is liable for damages to A’s heirs and to all the injured passengers. Under the Civil Code, a common carrier is duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence in carrying its passengers. This liability cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation or by posting notices
In the carriage of passengers, when does the obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence commence and when does it end?
Utmost diligence starts once the passenger places himself to, and is accepted by, and while he remains under the proper care and charge of the carrier. It lasts until such time that the passenger safely alights from and is given reasonable opportunity to leave the premises of the common carrier, including such time that he looks for and claims his luggage.
For the light rail transit system of transportation, it was held that a contract of carriage was created from the moment the passenger paid the fare at the LRT station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling him/her to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation
A and her child boarded the train of Manila Railroad Company. Upon approaching Barrio Lagalag, the train slowed down and the conductor shouted “Lusacan, Lusacan!” despite the fact that the next stop was still three (3) minutes away. A walked towards the train exit carrying her child with one hand and holding her baggage with the other. When they were near the door, the train suddenly picked up speed. A and her child stumbled from the train causing them to fall down the tracks and were hit by an oncoming train, causing their instant death. Is Manila Railroad Company liable?
Yes. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers like trains and buses that before reaching a station or flagstop they slow down and the conductor announces the name of the place. It is also a matter of common experience that as the train or bus slackens its speed, some passengers usually stand and proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disembark as the train or bus comes to a full stop. This is especially true of a train because passengers feel that if the train resumes its run before they are able to disembark, there is no way to stop it as a bus may be stopped.
It was negligence on the conductor’s part to announce the next flag stop when said stop was still a full three (3) minutes ahead. That the announcement was premature and erroneous is shown by the fact that immediately after the train slowed down, it unexpectedly accelerated to full speed. Manila Railroad Company failed to show any reason why the train suddenly resumed its regular speed. The announcement was made while the train was still in Barrio Lagalag.
This announcement prompted the victims to stand and proceed to the nearest exit. Without said announcement, the victims would have been safely seated in their respective seats when the train jerked as it picked up speed
A bus of GL Transit on its way to Davao stopped to enable a passenger to alight. At that moment, Santiago, who had been waiting for a ride, boarded the bus. However, the bus driver failed to notice Santiago who was still standing on the bus platform, and stepped on the accelerator. Because of the sudden motion, Santiago slipped and fell down, suffering serious injuries.
May Santiago hold GL Transit liable for breach of contract of carriage? Explain.
Santiago may hold GL liable for breach of contract of carriage. It was the duty of the driver, when he stopped the bus, to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the peril to a passenger such as Santiago while he was attempting to board the same. When a bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who wants to ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a continuous offer to bus riders. It is the duty of common carriers of passengers to stop their conveyances for a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an opportunity to board and enter, and they are Hable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from the sudden
starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so. Santiago, by stepping and standing on the platform of the bus, was already considered a passenger and was entitled to all the rights and protection pertaining to a contract of carriage.
X, an 80-year old epileptic, boarded the S/S Tamaraw in Manila going to Mindoro. To disembark, the passengers have to walk through a gang plank. While negotiating the gang plank, X slipped and fell into the waters. X was saved from drowning, brought to a hospital, but after a month died from pneumonia. Except for X, all the passengers were able to walk through the gang plank. What is the liability of the owner of the S/S Tamaraw?
The owner of the S/S Tamaraw is liable for the death of Xin failing to exercise utmost diligence in the safety of passengers. Evidently, the carrier did not take the necessary precautions in ensuring the safety of passengers in the boarding of and disembarking from the vessel. Unless shown to the contrary, a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent in cases of death or injury to its passengers. Since X had not completely disembarked yet, the obligation of the ship-owner to exercise utmost diligence still then subsisted and it can still be held liable.
The father returned to the bus to get one of his baggages which was not unloaded when they alighted from the bus. Racque, his child, followed him. However, although the father was sti on the running board of the bus waiting for the conductor to hand him the bag or bayong, the bus started to run. Raquel was run over and killed. Is the bus operator still liable as a common carrier?
Yes. The relation of carrier and passenger does not cease at the moment the passenger alights from the carrier’s vehicle at a place selected by the carrier at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises. And, what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances. It cannot be claimed that the carrier’s agent had exercised the “utmost diligence” of a “very cautious person require by Article 1755 of the Civil Code to be observed by a common carrier in the discharge of its obligation to transport safely its passengers. The presence of said passengers near the bus was not unreasonable and they are, therefore, to be considered still as passengers of the
carrier, entitled to the protection under their contract of carriage
An hour after the passengers and Viana had disembarked the vessel, the crane operator began its unloading operation. While the crane was being operated, Viana who had already disembarked the vessel remembered that some of his cargoes were still loaded there. He went back and while he was pointing to the crew where his cargoes were, the crane hit him resulting in his death. A complaint for damages was filed against Aboitiz Shipping Lines (Aboitiz) for breach of contract of carriage. Aboitiz contends that Viana ceased to be a passenger when he disembarked the vessel and that consequently his presence there was no longer reasonable. Is Aboitiz still liable as a common carrier?
Yes. The rule is that the relation of carrier and passenger continues until the passenger has been landed at the port of destination and has left the vessel owner’s dock or premises. Once created, 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 carrier’s premises. All persons who remain on the premises within a reasonable time after leaving the conveyance are to be deemed passengers, and what is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances, and includes a reasonable time to see after his baggage and prepare for his departure. It is of common knowledge that, by the very nature of the business of a shipper, the passengers of vessels are allotted a longer period of time to disembark from the ship than the passengers of other common carriers considering the bulk of cargoes and the number of passengers it can load. Consequently, such passenger will need at least an hour to disembark from the vessel and claim his baggage. In the case at bar, when the accident occurred, the victim was in the act of unloading his cargoes which he had every right to do. As such, even if he had already disembarked an hour- earlier, his presence in the carrier’s premises was not without cause.
While the victim was admittedly contributorily negligent, still Aboitiz’s aforesaid failure to exercise extraordinary diligence was the proximate and direct cause of, because it could definitely have prevented, the former’s death.
Is a common carrier liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the acts of its employees?
Article 1759, NCC
Yes, 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.
Marjorie, while waiting for the ZRT train to arrive, had a fistfight with the guard on duty. For the injuries she suffered, she sued ZRT Company for damages. ZRT Company denied liability and argued that the guard on duty was not their employee but that of an independent contractor. Is ZRT Company liable?
Yes. The foundation of ZRT’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of a common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the contract of carriage
City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train services, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna. Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated loading and unloading facilities to board the train. RicardoSantos purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to a fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as the train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by the train. He died. In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action, contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not guilty of negligence. Decide.
CRI is liable. A contract ofcarriage was created from the moment Ricardo paid the fare at the train station and entered the premises of the latter, entitling Ricardo to all the rights and protection under a contractual relation. CRI is liable for the death of Ricardo in fading to exercise extraordinary diligence imposed upon a common carrier. The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to provide safety to its passengers obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the contract of carriage. Furthermore, a common carrier is liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful act of its employees or agents that it contracted with
Tupang boarded a train as a paying passenger bound for Manila. Unfortunately, upon passing lyam Bridge at Lucena, Quezon, Tupang fell off the train resulting in his death. The train did not stop despite the alarm raised by the other passengers that somebody fell from the train. Instead, the train conductor called the station agent and requested for verification of the information. Police authorities of Lucena City were dispatched to the lyam Bridge where they found the lifeless body of Tupang. The train company denied liability and argued that it was the passenger who opted to sit in the open platform which led to his falling off from the train. Is the train company correct?
No. The train company has the obligation to transport its passengers to their destinations and to observe extraordinary diligence in doing so. Death or any injury suffered by any of itspassengers gives rise to the presumption that it was negligent in the performance of its obligation under the contract of carriage. Thus, it failed to overthrow such presumption of negligence with clear and convincing evidence.
But while the train company failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not exempting the PNR from liability, nevertheless justified the deletion of the amount adjudicated as moral damages.
What is the liability of the common carrier for death or injuries to passengers caused by other passengers and/or strangers?
Art 1762:
A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful 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.130
Art 1763:
The contributory negligence of the passenger 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.
