Transportation and maritime law

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 observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
4 Agbayani:
Presumption of negligence.-- CCs are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death or injuries to passengers. This disputable presumption may only be overcome by superior evidence that he had observed extraordinary diligence prescribed in 1733, 1755, 1756

Where death or injury results to the passenger because of the negligence of the CC's Es, the CC is liable, notwithstanding the fact that he had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, in the selection and supervision of his EEs

xxx

Consequently, in an action for damages, the issue is not WON the party seeking damages has adduced sufficient evidence to show the negligence of the CC but WON the carrier has presented the required quantum of proof to overcome the presumption that it has been at fault or that it acted negligently in the performance of its duty.

In the exercise of extraordinary diligence, the CC must give due regard for all circumstances in connection with the transport of passengers
How presumption of negligence overcome.-- To overcome such presumption, it must be shown that the CC had observed the required extraordinary diligence or that the accident was caused by fortuituos event. In order to constitute caso fortuito that would exempt a person from responsibility, it is necessary that :

1. The event must be independent of human will;

2. The occurrence must render it impossible for the obligor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner;

3. The obligor must be free of a concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. [Estrada vs Consolacion, 71 SCRA 523]

Carrier not precluded from proving negligence of other carrier involved in collision.-- While the plaintiff-passenger does not need to prove the negligence of the CC, he may not preclude the CC from proving the legal defense of negligence of the other vehicle involved in the collision (the CC may file a third-party complaint against the other vehicle for reimbursement)
"Last clear chance" rule not applicable to contracts of carriage.-- The principle of last clear chance applies only in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles; it does not apply where a passenger demands responsibility from the CC to enforce its contractual obligation; it would be iniquitous to exempt the driver and his ER on the ground that the other driver was also negligent
Court need not make express finding of carrier's fault or negligence.-- The court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the CC in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by the passenger. By the contract of carriage, the CC assumes the express obligation to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting the passenger This is an exception to general rule that negligence must be proved.
Carriers not ordinarily liable for injuries to passengers due to fires or explosions caused by articles brought into conveyance by other passengers.-- CC is not ordinarily liable for injuries to passengers due to fires or explosions caused by articles brought into conveyance by other passengers. Fairness demands that in measuring the CC's duty towards its passengers, allowance should be given to the reliance that should be reposed on the sense of responsibility of all the passengers in regard to their common safety (that the passenger will not take with him anything dangerous to his co-passengers.) For the carrier to be liable, he must be aware, through his EEs of the nature of the article or must have had some reason to anticipate danger therefrom (circumstances must show that there are causes for apprehension that the passenger's baggage is dangerous and that the CC fails to act in the fact of such evidence) [Nocum vs Laguna Bus Co., 1969]

4. Force Majeure

Bachelor Express vs CA 188 SCRA 217
F: Bus No. 800 owned by Bachelor Express and driven by Cresencio Rivera was the situs of a stampede which resulted in the death of passengers Beter and Rautrat. The bus came from Davao City on its way to Cagayan de Oro passing Butuan City. While in Tabon-Tabon, Butuan, the bus picked up a passenger. A passenger suddenly stabbed a PC soldier which caused commotion and panic among the passengers. Two passengers jumped out (finding of the TC which was reversed by the CA) of the bus and were found dead as a result of head injuries. The passenger- assailant ran away from the bus but was killed by the police. The parents of the dead passengers filed a complaint for a sum of money against the CC, the owner and the driver.

The CC denied liability and alleged that the driver was able to transport his passengers safely to their respective places of destination except for the two passengers who jumped off the bus without the knowledge and consent, much less, the fault of the driver; that the CC exercised due diligence in the choice of its EEs to avoid as much as possible accidents; that the incident was not a traffic or vehicular accident but was an incident very much beyond the control of the CC; that the CC was not a party to the incident as it was an act of a third party who is not in any way connected with the CC and of which they have no control and supervision. The CC argued that the incident's proximate cause was the act of the passenger who ran amuck and which triggered off the commotion and panic.

The TC dismissed the complaint. The CA reversed and ordered the CC, the owner and driver solidarily liable to the heirs of the deceased.
Held : The CC is liable for the death of the passengers.

Bachelor Express as a CC is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. In this case where passengers suffered injuries which caused their death, under 1756, the CC is presumed to have acted negligently unless it can prove that it had observed extraordinary diligence. The CC raised the defense of caso fortuito. Art. 1174 provides that no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were inevitable. In Lasam vs Smith, the SC held that a caso fortuito must have the following elements: (1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be independent of the human will; (2) It must be impossible to foresee the event; (3) The occurrence must be so as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (4) The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident and is within the context of force majeure.

However, in order that a CC may be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force majeure. The CC must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident. It must prove that there was no negligence or lack of care and diligence on the part of the CC.

The TC and the CA had conflicting findings of fact. The SC upheld the findings of the CA-- the driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion; the bus was speeding from a full stop; the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still running; the conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus; the bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance with law. It is therefore clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing CCs.

The CC's argument that it is not an insurer of its passengers deserves no merit in view of the failure of the CC to prove that the deaths of the 2 passengers were exclusively due to force majeure and not to the failure of the CC to observe extra-ordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted by law.

5. Limitation of liability; validity of stipulations

Art. 1757. The responsibility of the common carrier for the safety of passengers as required in Arts. 1733 and 1755 cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise.
Art. 1758. 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.
Ticket given to a passenger is a written contract.-- Ticket given to passenger is a written contract with the ff. elements: (1) the consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger boards the ship and the shipper consents or accepts him in the ship for transportation; (2) cause or consideration which is the fare paid by the passenger as stated in the ticket; (3) object, which is the transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of destination which are stated in the ticket.
Passenger bound notwithstanding his failure to sign ticket containing stipulation limiting liability.-- Even if the passenger failed to sign the ticket, he is nevertheless bound by the provisions thereof. Such provisions are part of the contract of carriage, regardless of the passenger's lack of knowledge or assent to the regulation. It is what is known as a contract of adhesion which is not entirely prohibited by law. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent. Accordingly, where the CC incurred delay, it is liable only for the amount printed in the ticket the passenger not having declared a higher value for his luggage nor paid addtl. charges.
Dispensing with or limiting liability.-- General rule: Under 1757, the extraordinary diligence required under 1733 and 1755 for the carriage of passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened (1) by stipulation, (2) by the posting of notices, (3) by statements on tickets, or (4) otherwise

What cannot be stipulated in a carriage of passengers :

(1) absolutely exempting the CC from liability from the passenger's death or injuries;

(2) lessening the extraordinary diligence required by law to the diligence of a good father of a family

Exception: Effect of gratuitous carriage.-- Under 1758, the CC and the passenger may validly stipulate limiting the CC's liability for negligence where the passenger is carried gratuitously (but the parties cannot stipulate to entirely eliminate liability of CC)
Effect of reduction of fares.-- Under 1758 (2), the reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the CC's liability -- the law requires gratuitous passage.
The law is much stricter with respect to carriage of passengers as compared with carriage of goods: a stipulation limiting the CC's liability in writing, signed by the parties, supported by sufficient consideration, not contrary to law will still be void where the passenger is not carried gratuitously.
Liability of owner of CC to accommodation passengers or invited guests.-- [Lara vs Valencia, 1958] an owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him; 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 and owner as in the case of one expressly invited to ride

6. Responsibility for acts of EEs

Art. 1759. 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 carrier.

The liability of the common carrier 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 employees.
Art. 1760. The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets, or otherwise.
4 Agbayani:
Liability for negligence or willful acts of employees.-- Under 1759, CC are held liable for the death or injuries to passengers caused by the negligence or the willful acts of their EEs, although such EEs may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the CC. The CC cannot escape liability by interposing the defense that its EEs have acted without any authority or against the orders of the CC

The passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the CC or its agents or EEs since the contract of transportation obligates the CC to transport a passenger safely to his destination and a CC is responsible for the misconduct of its EEs

Cardenas vs Fernando, 54 OG no. 4, p. 1043 (1957): (1) extraordinary diligence required of CC: calculated to protect the passengers as demanded by the preciousness of human life and by the consideration that every person must in every way be safeguarded against all injury; (2) liability for injury of passenger is based on a breach of contract of carriage for failure to bring the passenger safely to his destination
Reason for making the CC liable for the misconduct of its EEs in their own interest.-- The servant is clothed with delegated authority and charged with the duty by the CC, to execute his undertaking to carry the passenger safely; when the EE mistreats the passenger, he violates the contractual obligation of the CC for which he represents the CC
Liability of CC for defects of its equipment.-- A passenger is entitled to recover damages from a CC for an injury resulting from a defect in an appliance purchased from a manufacturer, whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the CC if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it, with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests; for the purposes of this doctrine, the manufacturer is considered as being in law the agent or servant of the CC, as far as regards the work of constructing the appliance
Common carrier is exempt from acts of EE not done in line of duty.-- The CC is exempt from liability where the EE was never in a position in which it became his duty to his ER to represent him in discharging any duty of the CC towards the passenger; the EE is deemed as a stranger or co-passenger since his act was not done in the line of duty
Defense of diligence in selection, etc., of employees.-- CC cannot escape liability by interposing defense that he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of his EEs; his liability is based on culpa contractual
When relationship of carrier and passenger terminates.-- The relation of CC and passenger does not cease at the moment that the passenger alights from the CC's vehicle at a place selected by the CC at the point of destination, but continues until the passenger had reasonable time or a reasonable opportunity to leave the CC's premises. What is a reasonable time or a reasonable delay within this rule is to be determined from all the circumstances
Elimination or limitation of carrier's liability.-- Under 1760, the CC's liability for the negligence or willful acts of his EEs which cause death of or injury to passengers cannot be eliminated or limited by (1) stipulation, (2) by the posting of notice, (3) by statements on the tickets, or (4) otherwise
Bataclan vs Medina, 104 Phil 181
F: supra. Bus turned turtle with gas leaking out. Rescuers brought torches which resulted in fire.
Held : There was a breach of the contract of carriage and negligence on the part of the agent of the CC, the driver. At the time of the blowout of the tires, the bus was speeding. The proximate cause of the death was the overturning of the vehicle which was followed by the negligence of the driver and the conductor who were on the road walking back and forth. They should have known that with the position of the bus, leakage was possible aside from the fact that gas when spilled can be smelled from a distance. The failure of the driver and conductor to have cautioned or taken steps to warn rescuers not to bring a lighted torch too near the bus constitutes negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier.

De Gillaco vs MRR, 97 Phil 884
F: Plaintiff's husband was a passenger in the train from Calamba to Manila. When the train reached the Paco Railroad, a train guard of MRR was in the station waiting for the same train to take him to Tutuban to report for duty. He had a long standing grudge against Gillaco and he shot and killed him upon seeing him inside the train coach.
Held : While a passenger is entitled to protection from personal violence by the CC or its agents or EEs, the responsibility of the CC extends only to those acts that the CC could foresee or avoid through the exercise of the degree of care and diligence required of it. The OCC did not impose upon CC the absolute liability for assaults of their EEs upon the passengers.

The act of the guard was entirely unforeseeable by MRR which had no means to ascertain or anticipate that the two would meet nor could it foresee every personal rancor that might exist between its EEs and its passengers. The shooting was a caso fortuito, both being unforeseeable and inevitable under the circumstances.

When the crime took place, the guard had no duties to discharge. His position would be that of a passenger also waiting transportation and not of an EE assigned to discharge duties.

Maranan vs Perez, 20 SCRA 412
F: A passenger in a taxicab was stabbed and killed by the driver. The driver claimed self defense since accdg to him, he was stabbed first by the passenger. The taxicab operator claimed caso fortuito.
Held: The NCC unlike the OCC makes the CC absolutely liable for intentional assaults committed by its EEs upon its passengers (Art. 1754). The CC's liability is based on either (1) respondeat superior or (2) the CC's implied duty to transport the passenger safely. Under respondeat superior (w/c is the minority view), the CC is liable only when the act of the EE is within the scope of his authority and duty. Under the second view, the CC is liable as long as the assault occurs within the course of the performance of the EE's duty. It is no defense that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the CC's orders. The CC's liability is absolute in the sense that it practically secures the passengers from assaults committed by its own EEs. Three cogent reasons underlie this rule : (1) the special undertaking of the CC requires that it furnish the passengers the full measure of protection afforded by the exercise of the high degree of care prescribed in the law, from violence and insults in the hands of strangers, other passengers, and from its own servants charged with the passenger's safety; (2) liability is based on the CC's confiding in the servant's hands the performance of his contract to safely transport the passenger, delegating therewith the duty of protecting the passenger with utmost care prescribed by law; (3) as between the CC and the passenger, the CC must bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the CC's EEs against passengers since it has the power to select and remove them.

It is the CC's obligation to select its drivers with due regard not only to their technical competence and physical ability but also to their total personality, including patterns of behavior, moral fiber, and social attitude.

7. Responsibility for acts of strangers and co-passengers
Art. 1763. 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.

4 Agbayani:

The CC is responsible for such willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, provided that the CC's EEs could have prevented or stopped the act or omission through the exercise of ordinary diligence. If the injury could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary diligence on the part of the EEs of the CC, the CC is not liable

Notice that the law speaks of injuries suffered by the passenger but not his death. However, there appears to be no reason why the common carrier should not be held liable under such circumstances. The word "injuries" should be interpreted to include "death." (Aguedo F. Agbayani, COMMERCIAL LAW REVIEWER, 1988 ed.)

Pilapil vs CA 180 SCRA 546
F: While on a bus, an unidentified bystander hurled a stone at the bus and hit Pilapil above his left eye. He sustained some injuries to his eye.
Held: The law does not make the CC an insurer of the absolute safety of its passengers. Art. 1755 qualifies the duty of the CC in exercising vigilance to only such as human care and foresight can provide. The presumption created by law against the CC is rebuttable by proof that the CC had exercised extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligations and that the injuries suffered were caused by fortuitous events. The liability of the CC necessarily rests upon its negligence, or its failure to exercise the degree of diligence required by law. Under Art. 1763, the diligence required, with regards to its liability in cases when intervening acts of strangers directly caused the injury, is the diligence only of a good father of a family and not the extraordinary diligence generally required. The rule is not so exacting as to require one charged with its exercise to take doubtful or unreasonable precautions to guard against unlawful acts of strangers. The CC would only be negligent if the tort caused by a third person could have been foreseen and prevented by them.

The injury was in no way connected to the performance of the obligation of the bus company. It was caused by a stranger, over which the carrier had no control or even knowledge of, and which could not have been prevented.

Bachelor Express vs CA, 180 SCRA 217
F: supra. A passenger stabbed a PC officer which caused a commotion which resulted in the death of 2 passengers.
Held: The CC raised the defense of caso fortuito. The running amuck of the passenger was the proximate cause of the incident and is within the context of force majeure. However, in order that a CC may be absolved from liability in case of force majeure, it is not enough that the accident was caused by force majeure. The CC must still prove that it was not negligent in causing the injuries resulting from such accident. It must prove that there was no negligence or lack of care and diligence on the part of the CC.

The TC and the CA had conflicting findings of fact. The SC upheld the findings of the CA-- the driver did not immediately stop the bus at the height of the commotion; the bus was speeding from a full stop; the victims fell from the bus door when it was opened or gave way while the bus was still running; the conductor panicked and blew his whistle after people had already fallen off the bus; the bus was not properly equipped with doors in accordance with law. It is therefore clear that the petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of fault and negligence found in the law governing CCs.

The CC's argument that it is not an insurer of its passengers deserves no merit in view of the failure of the CC to prove that the deaths of the 2 passengers were exclusively due to force majeure and not to the failure of the CC to observe extraordinary diligence in transporting safely the passengers to their destinations as warranted by law.

8. Duty of passenger; effect of contributory negligence