Transportation Law- Common Carriers Cases
Content
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
COMMON CARRIERS
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE over goods and safety of passengers
Art. 1733, Civil Code:—Common carriers, from
business and for reasons of public policy, are
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
safety of passengers transported by them,
circumstances of each case.
the nature of their
bound to observe
goods and for the
according to the
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:
1
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
(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
2
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
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.
3
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
Fores v. Miranda
4
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
COMMON CARRIERS
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE over goods and safety of passengers
Art. 1733, Civil Code:—Common carriers, from
business and for reasons of public policy, are
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
safety of passengers transported by them,
circumstances of each case.
the nature of their
bound to observe
goods and for the
according to the
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:
1
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
(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
2
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
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.
3
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Transportation Law
Atty. Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo
Fores v. Miranda
4
