Transpo Bar Qs

7/24/2019 Transpo Bar Qs

1/15

No. 1Common vs. Private Carrier; Defenses (2002) and Common Carrier; Defenses (2002)

A. Name two (2) characteristics which diferentiate a common carrier rom a private carrier.B. Why is the deense o due diligence in the selection and supervision o an employee not

available to a common carrier

SUGGESTED ANSWE!

A. !wo (2) characteristics that diferentiate a common carrier rom a private carrier are"# A common carrier ofers its service to the public$ a private carrier does not.2 A common carrier is re%uired to observe e&traordinary diligence$ a private carrier is not so

re%uired.B. !he deense o due diligence in the selection and supervision o an employee is not available

to a common carrier because the degree o diligence re%uired o a common carrier is not thediligence o a good ather o a amily but e&traordinary diligence' i.e.' diligence o the greatestsill and utmost oresight.

No. 2Carria"e; Pro#i$ited % &a'id Sti'ations (2002)

iscuss whether or not the ollowing stipulations in a contract o carriage o a common carrier arevalid"

A. a stipulation limiting the sum that may be recovered by the shipper or owner to *+, o the

value o the goods in case o loss due to thet.B. a stipulation that in the event o loss' destruction or deterioration o goods on account o the

deective condition o the vehicle used in the contract o carriage' the carrier-s liability islimited to the value o the goods appearing in the bill o lading unless the shipper or ownerdeclares a higher value (,)

SUGGESTED ANSWE!

A. !he stipulation is considered unreasonable' un/ust and contrary to public policy under Article#01 o the ivil ode.

B. !he stipulation limiting the carrier-s liability to the value o the goods appearing in the bill olading unless the shipper or owner declares a higher value' is e&pressly recogni3ed in Article#01* o the ivil ode.

No.*Common Carrier; Defenses; +imitation of +ia$i'it, (2001)4uppose A was riding on an airplane o a common carrier when the accident happened and A

sufered seriousin/uries. 5n an action by A against the common carrier' thelatter claimed that #) therewas a stipulation in the ticet issued to A absolutely e&empting the carrier rom liability rom thepassenger-s death or in/uries ad notices were posted by the common carrier dispensing with thee&traordinary diligence o the carrier' and 2) A was given a discount on his plane are thereby reducingthe liabilityo the common carrier with respect to A in particular.

a) Are those valid deenses$) What are the deenses available to any common carrier to limit or e&empt it rom liability

SUGGESTED ANSWE!

A. No. !hese are not valid deenses because they arecontrary to law as they are in violation othe e&traordinarydiligence re%uired o common carriers. (Article #00' #06New ivil ode

B. !he deenses available to any common carrier to limit or e&empt it rom liability are"#. observance o e&traordinary diligence'2. or the pro&imate cause o the incident is a ortuitous event or orce ma/eure'7. act or omission o the shipper or owner o the goods'1. the character o the goods or deects in the pacing or in the containers' and. order or act o competent public authority' without the common carrier being guilty o

even simple negligence (Article #071' N).

No. -+imited +ia$i'it, 'e (2000)


2/15

89 8ariposa' one o :ve passenger ships owned by8arina Navigation o' san of the coast o8indoro while en route to 5loilo ity. 8ore than 2++ passengers perished in the disaster. ;videnceshowed that the ship captain ignored typhoon bulletins issued by es. Crdinarily' the common carrier is not liable or acts oother passengers. But the common

carrier cannot relieveitsel rom liability i the common carrier-s employeescould have prevented theact or omission by e&ercising duediligence. 5n this case' the passenger ased the driver toeep an eyeon the bag which was placed beside thedriver-s seat. 5 the driver e&ercised due diligence' he couldhave prevented the loss o the bag.

No. 4Carria"e; /rea3# of Contra3t; Presmtion of Ne"'i"en3e (14)

5n a court case involving claims or damages arising rom death and in/ury o bus passengers'counsel or the bus operator :les a demurrer to evidence arguing that the complaint should bedismissed because the plaintifs didnot submit any evidence that the operator or its employees werenegligent. 5 you were the /udge' would you dismissthe complaint

SUGGESTED ANSWE!No. 5n the carriage o passengers' the ailure o thecommon carrier to bring the passengers

saely to theirdestination immediately raises the presumption that such ailure is attributable to thecarrier-s ault or negligence. 5n the case at bar' the act o death and in/ury o the buspassengersraises the presumption o ault or negligenceon the part o the carrier. !he carrier must rebut suchpresumption. Ctherwise' the conclusion can be properly made that the carrier ailed to e&ercisee&traordinarydiligence as re%uired by law.


3/15

No. Common Carrier (1)

e:ne a common carrier

SUGGESTED ANSWE!A common carrier is a person' corporation' :rm or association engaged in the business o

carrying ortransporting passengers or goods or both' by land' water or air or compensation' ofering

its services to the public(Art #072' ivil ode)

No. Common Carriers; Defenses (1) and Common Carrier; Dration of +ia$i'it, (1)

#. A8 !rucing' a small company' operates two trucs or hire on selective basis. 5t caters onlyto a ew customers'and its trucs do not mae regular or scheduled trips. 5tdoes not even have acerti:cate o public convenience.Cn one occasion' Deynaldo contracted A8 to transport or a ee' #++sacs o rice rom 8anila to !arlac. owever' A8 ailed to deliver the cargo' because its truc washi/aced when the driver stopped in Bulacan to visit his girlriend.

a) 8ay Deynaldo hold A8 liable as a common carrierb) 8ay A8 set up the hi/acing as a deense to deeat Deynaldo-s claim

2. A bus o ? !ransit on its way to avao stopped to enable a passenger to alight. At thatmoment' 4antiago' who had been waiting or a ride' boarded the bus. owever' the bus driver ailed to

notice 4antiago who was still standing on the bus platorm' and stepped on the accelerator. Because othe sudden motion' 4antiago slipped and ell down sufering serious in/uries.

8ay 4antiago hold ? !ransit liable or breach o contract o carriage ;&plain.

SUGGESTED ANSWE!1.a. Deynaldo may hold A8 !rucing liable as a common carrier. !he acts that A8 !rucing

operates only twotrucs or hire on a selective basis' caters only to a ewcustomers' does notmae regular or scheduled trips' anddoes not have a certi:cate o public convenience are ono moment as

the law does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying opersons or goods or both and anyone who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity'

the law avoids maing any distinction between a person or enterprise ofering transportationservice on a regular or scheduled basis and one ofering such service on an occasional'

episodic or unscheduled basis' andthe law rerains rom maing a distinction between a carrier ofering its services to the generalpublic and one who ofers services or solicits business only rom a narrow segment o thegeneral population

b. A8 !rucing may not set up the hi/acing as a deense to deeat Deynaldo-s claim as the actsgiven do not indicate that the same was attended by the use o grave or irresistible threat'violence' or orce. 5t would appear that the truc was let unattended by its driver and wastaen while he was visiting his girlriend. (Pedro de Guzman v CA

2. 4antiago may hold ? !ransit liable or breach o contract o carriage. 5t was the duty o thedriver' when he stopped the bus' to do no act that would have the efect o increasing the perilto a passenger such as 4antiago while he was attempting to board the same. When a bus isnot in motion there is no necessity or a person who wants to ride the same to signal his

intention to board. A public utility bus' once it stops' is in efect maing a continuous ofer tobus riders. 5t is the duty o common carriers o passengers to stop their conveyances or areasonable length o time in order to aford passengers an opportunity to board and enter' andthey are liable or in/uries sufered by boarding passengers resulting rom the sudden startingup or /ering o their conveyances while they are doing so. 4antiago' by stepping and standingon the platorm o the bus' is already considered a passenger and is entitled to all the rightsand protection pertaining to a contract o carriage.


4/15

No 10Carria"e; 5ortitos Event (1)

8. i3on !rucing entered into a hauling contract with Eairgoods o whereby the ormer bounditsel to haul thelatter-s 2+++ sacs o 4oya bean meal rom 8anila es. Inless the contents o a cargo are declared or thecontents o a lost luggage are proved

by the satisactoryevidence other than the sel=serving declaration o oneparty' the contract shouldbe enorced as it is the only reasonable basis to arrive at a /ust award. !he passenger or shipper isbound by the terms o the passenger ticet orthe waybill. (Panama v Rapadas 209 s 67)


5/15

No. #7As a result o collision between a ta&icab owned by A and another ta&icab owned by B' G' a

passenger o the :rst ta&i cab' was seriously in/ured. G later :led a criminal action against both drivers.a. 5s it necessary or G to reserve his right to institute a civil action or damages against both

ta&icab owners beore he can :le a civil action or damages against them Whyb. 8ay both ta&icab owners raise the deense o due diligence in the selection and supervision o

their drivers to be absolved rom liability or damages to G reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWE!a. 5t depends. 5 the separate civil action is to recover damages arising rom the criminal act'

reservation is necessary. 5 the civil action against the ta&icab owners is based on culpacontractual' or on %uasi=delict' there is no need or reservation.

b. 5t depends. 5 the civil action is based on a %uasi=delict the ta&icab owners may raise thedeense o diligence o a good ather o a amily in the selection and supervision o the driver$i the action against them is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising rom a crime'they cannot raise the deense.

No.#15ortitos event6 me3#ani3a' defe3t

A van owned by Crlando and driven by iego' while negotiating a downhill slope o a city road'suddenly gained speed' obviously beyond the authori3ed limit in the area' and bumped a car in ront oit' causing severed damage to the care and serious in/uries to its passengers. Crlando was not in thecar at the time o the incident. !he car owner and the in/ured passengers sued Crlando and iego or

damages caused by iegoJs negligence. 5n their deense' iego claims that the downhill slope causedthe van to gain speed and that' as he stepped on the braes to chec the acceleration' the braesloced' causing the van to go even aster and eventually to hit the car in ront o it. Crlando and iegocontend that the sudden malunction o the vanJs brae system is a ortuitous even and that'thereore' they are e&empt rom any liability. 5s this contention tenable ;&plain. (2,)

SUGGESTED ANSWE!No. 8echanical deects o a motor vehicle do not constitute ortuitous event' since the

presence o such deects would have been readily detected by diligent maintenance chec. !he ailureto maintain the vehicle in sae running condition constitutes negligence.

No. #E7traordinar, Di'i"en3e

espite a warning rom the police that an attempt to hi/ac a


6/15

I.4. ode o Eederal Degulations. 9anessa on the other hand contended that assuming that the I.4.ode o Eederal Degulations allowed 5ntentional overbooing' the airline company cannot invoe theI.4. ode on the ground that the ticet was purchased in 8anila' hence' died. Both G and > were passengers o the bus. Both drivers wereat ault' and so G and F' the only heir and legitimate child o the deceased >' sued the owners o both

vehicles.a) 8ay the owner o the bus raise the deense o having e&ercised the diligence o a good

ather o a amilyb) 8ay raise the same deensec) 8ay G claim moral damages rom both deendantsd) 8ay F claim moral damages rom both deendants ?ive reasons or all your answers'

SUGGESTED ANSWE!a. No. the owner o the bus cannot raise the deense because the carrierJs liability is based onbreach o contract.b. >es. can raise the deense because his liability is based on a %uasi=delictc. because G sufered physical in/uries' G can claim moral damages against ' but as against theowner o the bus. G can claim moral damages only i G proves recless negligence o the carrieramounting to raud.

d. F can claim moral damages against both deendants because the rules on damages arisingrom death due to a %uasi= delict are also applicable to death o a passenger caused by breach ocontract by a common carrier (arts. #0. #0M' #0M1' 22+M and 22#* )

No. #6ommon arriers" eenses and iability o employers

4umaay' passenger on a bus owned and operated by anlungan Bus ompany sufered seriousin/uries when the vehicle went out o control and rammed an electric post. !super' the bus driver' wasat the time o the accident' going #++ ilometer per hour in a school 3one and hit the post because hewas trying to avoid hitting school children crossing the street.5n a suit or damages against the bus company or the drivers gross negligence' anlungan interposethe deense that all its drivers were under strict in/unction to observe speed limits in their particularroutes and that in any event' the driver should :rst have been sued' held liable' and ound insolventbeore anlungan could be proceeded againstAre the bus companyJs deenses tenable ;&plain


7/15

#*. !he deenses are not valid.ommon carriers cannot escape liability by stipulation in the bill o lading relieving them or

responsibility or the acts o thieves who do not act with grave or irresistible threat or orce.ommon carriers are similarly orbidden rom e&empting themselves rom liability or the acts

or omissions o its employees by stipulations to that efect in the bill o lading.2+.

5s an agreement limiting the common carrierJs liability or delay in case o strie valid5s a stipulation limiting the common carrierJs liability to the value o the goods declared by the

shipper in the bill o lading valid ?ive reasons or your answer.Answer to :rst %uestion>es' an agreement limiting a common carrierJs liability or delay in case o a strie is valid. !his

is e&pressly recogni3ed in the under the law on common carriers. Besides' and this is the reason

behind the law' not only natural disasters or acts o ?od but even acts o men or orce ma/eure whichare unoreseeable or unavoidable' such as stries and riots' are classi:ed as ortuitous events. Inderthe doctrine o ortuitous events' such an agreement would be perectly valid. (arts. #016 and ##01)

Answer to second %uestion5 distinguish. 5 the stipulation li itJs the carrierJs liability to an agreed valuation such as the

value o the goods appearing in the bill o lading' unless the shipper or owner declares a greater value'it is valid. As a matter o act' this is stated in the law on common carriers. 5 the stipulation limits thecarrierJs liability to an agreed valuation without any %uali:cation whatsoever such as the value o thegoods appearing in the bill o lading' as a rule' it is contrary to public policy' and thereore' void.owever' i it can be shown to be reasonable and /ust under the circumstances' and had been airlyand reely agreed upon' then it is perectly valid. (arts. #01* and #0+ based on decoded cases..answer based on #01* alone should be considered a perect answer)2#. 5 distinguish. 5 the shipper 4 read the stipulation speci:ed in :ne print in the bill o lading or

was aware thereo' then' he cannot collect the true value o the lost shipment. 4uch a

stipulation is considered by law valid and binding (art #01*' #0+). 5 he was not aware thereo'then he can collect the true value o the lost shipment. !here can be no presumption that 4read the stipulation. 5t was written in :ne print.

22.A ta&icab passenger was deliberately illed by the driver. 5s the operator o the ta&icab civillyliable ;&plainAnswer>es. !he ta&icab operator is civilly liable on the basis o breach o the contract o carriage. Art#0M* states that the common carriers are liable or the death o or in/uries to passengersthrough the negligence or willul acts o the ormerJs employees' although such employeesmay have acted beyond the scope o their authority or in violation o the orders o the commoncarriers. !his liability does not cease upon proo that the common carrier e&ercised all thediligence o a good ather o a amily in the selection and supervision o their employees.5n other words' the liability o the employer is not based on delict or %uasi=delict. !he liability othe common carrier is primary and cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation (art #0M+)

(maranan v pere3)

27.+ia$i'it,; Air'ine Coman,; NonPerforman3e of an


8/15

they are elite membersQholders o ?old 8abalos lass cards. 4ince they were embarrassed at thediscussions with the Kight attendants' they were orced to tae the Kight at the :rst class section apartrom their riends who were in the business class. Ipon their return to 8anila' they demanded awritten apology rom


9/15

iewise' i the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal case or criminal negligence' B! issubsidiarily liable or the damages arising rom the criminal act.

No. 2M+imited +ia$i'it, 'e; Genera' Avera"e +oss (2000)

#. G 4hipping ompany spent almost a ortune in re:tting and repairing its lu&ury passengervessel' the 89 8arina'which plied the inter=island routes o the company rom a Inion in the

north to avao ity in the south. !he89 8arina met an untimely ate during its post=repairvoyage. 5t san of the coast o Fambales while en route to a Inion rom 8anila. !heinvestigation showed that thecaptain alone was negligent. !here were no casualties in thatdisaster. Eaced with a claim or the payment o the re:tting and repair' G 4hipping companyassertede&emption rom liability on the basis o the hypothecary orlimited liability rule underArticle 60 o the ode oommerce. 5s G 4hipping ompany-s assertion valid ;&plain

2. 89 4uperEast' a passenger=cargo vessel owned by 4E 4hipping ompany plying the inter=islandroutes' was on its way to Famboanga ity rom the 8anila port when it accidentally' andwithout ault or negligence o anyone on the ship' hit a huge Koating ob/ect. !he accidentcaused damage to the vessel and loss o an accompanying crated cargo o passenger


10/15

SUGGESTED ANSWE!Inder the doctrine o limited liability in maritime law' the liability o the shipowner arising

rom the operation o a ship is con:ned to the vessel' e%uipment' and reight' or insurance' i any' sothat i the shipowner abandoned the ship' e%uipment' and reight' his liability is e&tinguished.owever' the doctrine o limited liability does not apply when the shipowner or captain is guilty onegligence.

No. 2

/i'' of +adin" (1)#. What do you understand by a @bill o lading2. ;&plain the two=old character o a @bill o lading.

SUGGESTED ANSWE!#. A bill o lading may be de:ned as a written acnowledgement o the receipt o goods and anagreement to transport and to deliver them at a speci:ed place to a person named therein or on hisorder.

2. A bill o lading has a two=old character' namely' a) it is a receipt o the goods to be transported$ andb) it constitutes a contract o carriage o the goods.

No. 7+

Do3trine of ns3rta$'e 5a't (1)A severe typhoon was raging when the vessel 44 8asdaam collided with 89


11/15

b. Inder the @doctrine o limited liabilityS the e&clusively real and hypothecary nature omaritime law operates to limit the liability o the ship owner to the value o the vessel' earnedreightage and proceeds o the insurance. owever' such doctrine does not apply i the shipowner and the captain are guilty o negligence.

No. 77

Certi=3ate of P$'i3 Convenien3e; e?irements (1) and C


12/15

SUGGESTED ANSWE!#) By @limited liability ruleS is meant that the liability o a shipowner or damages in case o

loss is limited to the value o the vessel involved. is other properties cannot be reached by theparties entitled to damages.

2) >es. When the ship owner o the vessel involved is guilty o negligence' the @limited liabilityruleS does notapply. 5n such case' the ship owner is liable to the ulle&tent o the damages sustainedby the aggrieved parties("e#enas v CA 180 s 83)

No. 7M/ottomr, (1-)

?igi obtained a loan rom Oo/o orporation' payable in installments. ?igi e&ecuted a chattelmortgage in avor oOo/o whereby she transerred @in avor o Oo/o' itssuccessors and assigns' all hertitle' rights ... to a vessel owhich ?igi is the absolute owner.S !he chattel mortgage was registeredwith the


13/15

B.


14/15

moved to dismiss the case on the ground that ellow ab ompany under the boundary system. While cruising along the4outh ;&pressway' Baldo-s cab :gured in a collision' illing his passenger'


15/15

B. !he claim o ompany is meritorious' even i it ails to present a bill o lading. Although a billo lading is the best evidence o the contract o carriage or cargo' nevertheless such contract cane&ist even without a bill o lading. ie any other contract' a contract o carriage is a meeting ominds that gives rise to an obligation on the part o the carrier to transport the goods.Ourisprudence has held that the moment the carrier receives the cargo or transport' then its dutyto e&ercise e&traordinary diligence arises& (Cia&"ari!ima v& nsuran#e Co& o' or! Ameri#a G&R&o& %1896* #!oer 30 1964 e$re v& Caau$ :ippin$ ; Co& G&R& o& %19609 April 29 1966)

No. 12C#arter Part, (200-)

Inder a charter party' GGC !rading ompany shipped sugar to oca=ola ompany through 44Negros 4hippingorp.' insured by apitol 5nsurance ompany. !he cargoarrived but with shortages.oca=ola demanded rom apitol 5nsurance o.

Transpo Bar Qs

Documents

Transcript of Transpo Bar Qs