Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
How will you advice the claimants? Discuss the doctrine of limited
liability in maritime law.
Under the doctrine of limited liability in maritime law, the
liability of the shipowner arising from the operation of a ship is confined
to the vessel, equipment, and freight, or insurance, if any, so that if the
shipowner abandoned the ship, equipment, and freight, his limited
liability does not apply when the shipowner or captain is guilty of
negligence.
1998 BAR EXAMINATION
1. What do you understand by a bill of lading?
A bill of lading may be defined as a written acknowledgment
of the receipt of goods and an agreement to transport and to deliver
them at a specified place to a person named therein or his order.
2. Explain the two-fold character of a bill of lading.
A bill of lading has a two-fold character, namely, (a) it is
receipt of goods to be transported; and (b) it constitutes a contract of
carriage of goods.
3. A severe typhoon was raging when the vessel SS Masdaam
collided with MV Princess. It is conceded that the typhoon was the
major cause of the collision, although there was a very strong
possibility that it could have been avoided if the captain of the SS
Masdaam was not drunk and the captain of the MV Princess was
not asleep at the time of the collision. Who should bear the
damages to the vessels and their cargoes?
The shipowners of SS MAsdaam and MV Princess shall each
bear their respective loss of vessels. For the losses and damages
suffered by their cargoes, both shipowners are solidarily liable.
1997 BAR EXAMINATION
1. Antonio, a paying passenger, boarded a bus bound for Batangas
City. He chose a seat at the front row, near the bus driver, and told
the bus driver that he had valuable items in his hand-carried bag
which he then placed beside the drivers seat. Not having slept for
24 hours, he requested the driver to keep an eye on the bag should
he doze off during the trip. While Antonio was asleep, another
passenger took the bag away and alighted at Calamba, Laguna.
Could the common carrier be held liable by Antonio for the loss?
Yes. Ordinarily, the common carrier is not liable for acts of
other passengers. But the common carrier cannot relieve itself from
liability if the common carriers employees could not have prevented the
act or omission by exercising due diligence. In this case, the passenger
asked the driver to keep an eye on the bag which was placed beside the
drivers seat. If the driver exercised due diligence, he could have
prevented the loss of the bag.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, the common carrier is not liable for the
loss. It is not the duty of the driver to watch over the baggages of
passengers. His attention should be directed at driving the bus.
2. In a court case involving claims for damages arising from death
and injury of bus passengers, counsel for the bus operator files 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 attributable to the carriers
fault or negligence. In the case at bar, the fact of death and injury of the
bus passengers raises the presumption of fault or negligence on the
part of the carrier. The carrier must rebut such presumption. Otherwise,
the conclusion can be properly made that the carrier failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence as required by law.
1996 BAR EXAMINATION
1. Define a common carrier.
A common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both, by land, water or air for compensation, offering its
services to the public (Article 1732).
2. What is the test for determining whether or not one is a common
carrier?
The test for determining whether or not one is a common
carrier is whether or person or entity, for some business purpose and
with general or limited clientele, offers the service of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods both for compensation.
3. AM Trucking, a small company, operates 2 trucks for hire on
selective basis. It caters to only a few customers, and its trucks do
not make regular scheduled trips. It does not even have a
certificate of public convenience.
On one occasion, Reynaldo contracted AM to transport,
for a fee, 100 sacks of rice from Manila to Tarlac. However, AM
failed to deliver the cargo, because its truck was hijacked when the
driver stopped in Bulacan to visit his girlfriend.
a. May Reynaldo hold AM liable as common carrier? Explain.
Reynaldo may hold AM Trucking liable as a common carrier.
The facts that AM Trucking operates only two trucks for hire on a
selective basis, caters only to a few customers, does not make regular
or scheduled trips, does not have a certificate of public convenience are
of no moments as the law:
i.
ii.
iii.
at the same time that he paid the freight charges of his cargo. Is X
a passenger of PNR?
No, X was not a passenger. A stowaway, being a trespasser,
has been held to assume the risk of damage.
4. X, an 80-year old epileptic, boarded SS Tamaraw in manila going
to Mindoro. To disembark, the passengers have to walk thru a gang
plant. 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 thru the gang plank. What is the liability of the
owner of SS Tamaraw?
The owner of SS Tamaraw is liable for the death of X in 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 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 has not
completely disembarked yet, the obligation of the shipowner to exercise
utmost diligence still then subsisted and he can still be held liable.
1987 BAR EXAMINATION
1. Philip Mauricio shipped a box of cigarettes to a dealer in Naga
City through BBC. When the bus reached Lucena City, the bus
developed engine trouble. The driver brought the bus to a repair
shop in Lucena where he was informed by the mechanic that and
extensive repair was necessary, which would take at least two
days. While the bus was in the repair shop, Typhoon Coring lashed
at Quezon Province. The cargoes inside the bus, including
Mauricios cigarettes got wet and were totally spoiled. Mauricio
sued BBC for damage to his cargoes. Decide.
BBC is liable for damages to the cargoes lost by Mauricio. A
natural disaster would relieve liability if it is the proximate cause and
only cause of the damage. The carrier itself, in this case, had been
negligent. The presumption of negligence in culpa contractual is not
overcome by engine trouble which does not preclude its having been
due to the fault of the common carrier. The fact that an extensive repair
work was necessary which, in fact, took 2 days to complete somehow
justifies an impression that the engine trouble could have been
detected, if not already known, well before the actual breakdown.
2. During the elections last May, AB, a congressional candidate in
Marinduque, chartered the helicopter owned by LMC for use in the
election campaign. AB paid LMC the same rate normally charged
by companies regularly engaged in the plane chartering business.
In the charter agreement between LMC and AB, LMC expressly
disclaimed any responsibility for the acts or omissions of its pilot
or for the defective condition of the planes engine. The helicopter
crashed killing AB. Investigations disclosed that pilot error was the
cause of the accident. LMC now consults you on its possible
liability for ABs death in the light of the above findings, how would
you reply to LMCs query?
I would reply to LMCs query as follows:
LMC may not be held liable for the death of AB. A stipulation with a
private carrier that would disclaim responsibility for simple negligence of
the carriers employees is a valid stipulation. Such a stipulation,
however, will not hold in cases of liability for gross negligence or bad
faith.
3. Martin Nove shipped an expensive video equipment to a friend in
Cebu. Martin had bought the equipment from HongKong for $5,000.
The equipment was shipped through MS Lapu-Lapu under a bill of
lading which contained the following provision in big bold letters:
The limit of the carriers liability for any loss to cargo shall be
P200 regardless of the actual value of such cargo, whether
declared by the shipper or otherwise
Give the extent of the liability of the bus company with reasons.
The bus company being a common carrier, is liable to Juan, a
paying passenger, for damages in the amount of P3,000 for goods and
P6,000 for hospital expenses. The stipulation at the back of the bus
ticket stating that the liability is limited to P1,000 in case of injuries to its
passengers caused by negligence or willful acts of its employees, is
void, since the responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of the
passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation or
statements in tickets or otherwise. As to stipulation in the ticket to be
liable only to P500 in case of loss or damage to baggage caused by
negligence or willful acts of its employees, that is void being
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy.
2. Mabuhay Lines, a common carrier, entered unto a contract with
Company X, whereby it agreed to furnish Company X, for a fixed
amount, a bus for a company excursion on its anniversary day. It
was agreed that Company X would have the use of the bus and its
driver from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on the stipulated date, and that the
bus driver would be obliged to follow the instructions of the
companys general manager as to the places to be visited.
Company X agreed to bear the cost of the gasoline consumed.
The transportation contract signed by Company X contained a
stipulation that Mabuhay Lines would be exempt from liability on
account of acts or omissions of its employees. On the return trip
from the excursion site, the bus had an accident and several
employees of Company X were injured.
State the liability, if any of Mabuhay Lines.
Mabuhay Lines is liable for the injuries of Company Xs
employees which it carried for a fixed amount. Its responsibility, as a
common carrier for the safety of passengers, cannot be dispensed with
or lessened by stipulation