Transportation Law- Common Carriers Cases

1Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes

Transportation LawAtty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo

COMMON CARRIERS

EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE over goods and safety of passengers

Art. 1733, Civil Code:—Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them, according to the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in these articles: (Art. 1734, 1735 and 1745 nos. 5, 6, 7 while extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers is further set forth on Art. 1755 and 1756).

EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE VIGILANCE OVER THE GOODS(1734, 1735 and 1745)

Art. 1734: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods(4) The character of the goods or defects in packing or in the containers(5) Order or act of competent authority

Art. 1735: In all cases other than those mentioned in nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Art. 1733.

Art. 1745: Any of the following similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:

(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;

(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force is dispensed with or diminished;



(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods on account of a defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.

EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN THE SAFETY OF PASSENGERS

Art. 1755: A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.

Art. 1756: 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 observe extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.

CASES:

Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co.

In this case, Jose Cangco was alighting from a moving train when he stepped on a watermelon and stepped outside its doors. On the issue whether who is at fault, the Court ruled that Manila Railroad Co. is liable because of the following:

(a) It is not negligence per se for a traveller to alight from a slowly moving train, since it is a practice for a lot of people to move inside a moving train everyday without suffering injury.

(b) There is distinction between culpa aquiliana or negligence as a source of an obligation and culpa contractual, negligence in the performance of a contract.

Isaac v. A.L. Ammen

Isaac boarded AL Ammen bus on the way from Ligao to CamSur when the bus collided with a motor cycle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which, Isaac’s left arm was completely severed. Isaac filed a complaint for damages due to negligence. However, the trial court found out that the collision was brought about by the negligence of the pick-up, and not of the bus.

In this case, the Supreme Court cited these points:

(a) Art. 1733, Civil Code = which provides that common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence. With respect to passengers—Art. 1755 and 1756

(b) Art. 1755 = A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide



(c) Art. 1756 = In case of death 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

(d)Principles governing liability of the common carrier:

1. The liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. (There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence)

2. A carrier is obliged to carry its passengers with utmost diligence of a very cautious person, having due regard for all the circumstances

3. A carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death, or injury to passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence

4. The carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel

In this case, the bus was running at a moderate speed and had just stopped at the school zone when the pick-up driver was running at a full speed and is not in its proper lane. The bus turned right, but cannot take full right turn since the peak of which is about 3ft high. Despite his best efforts to avoid the pick-up, the bus was still hit by the pick-up car.

Isaac is also guilty of contributory negligence since his left arm is outside the window.

Fores v. Miranda

Documents

Transportation Law- Common Carriers Cases