Transportation Law Reviewer

TRANSPORTATION LAW REVIEWER
1. Distinguish common carrier from a private carrier

Ans: Under Article 1732, a common carrier is defined as persons,
corporations, firms, associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by and, water, or air, for
compensation, offering their services to the public
A private carrier, on the other hand, agrees in some special case with
some private individual to carry for hire. In National Steel Corp. v. CA, private
carriage is undertaken by special agreement and the carrier does not hold
himself out to carry goods for the general public
2. What is the diligence required in the conduct of business of common carriers?

Ans: Article 1733 provides that common carriers are bound to exercise
ordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods and for safety of passengers
transported by them, which means that the carrier must show the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can
provide.
3. Are private carriers required to exercise the same degree of diligence?

Ans: No. Private carriers are only required to observed ordinary diligence.
(Note: Due diligence is that which is required by nature of the obligation and
corresponds with circumstance of the persons, of the time and the place)
4. Are common carriers responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the
goods?
Ans: Yes. As a rule, common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of the goods (Article 1734).
5. Is the above rule absolute? If no, what are the exceptions?

Ans: No. Under Article 1734, the following are the exculpatory causes to
exempt the carrier from liability:
a. Floods, storm, earthquake, lighting, or other natural disaster or

calamity;
b. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
d. the character of the goods or defects in packing or in the containers;
e. order or act of competent public authority.
Note: In all cases, other than those mentioned above, the common carrier is
presumed to be negligent, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as required under Article 1733. (Article 1735)
6. What are the requisites for natural disaster or calamity to be an exculpatory

cause?
Ans: The following are the requisites:
a. the natural disaster must have been the proximate cause of the loss;
b. it must have been the only cause of the loss;
c. the common carrier must have exercised due diligence to prevent or
minimized loss before, during, and after the natural disaster;
and
d. the common carrier has not negligently incurred in delay in
transporting the goods.
Note: If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the

goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from
responsibility (Article 1740)
However, an agreement limiting the common carriers liability for

DELAY on account of strikes or riot is valid (See Article 1748).
7. What are the requisites for act of public enemy?

Ans: The requisites are the following:
a. that the act the public enemy must have been the proximate cause
of loss;
b. that it must have been the only cause of loss;
c. prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the act of public
enemy in war.
8. What are the requisites for act or omission of the shipper as cause to exempt the
carrier form liability?
Ans: The requisites are the following:
a. that the cat or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods must
have been the proximate cause of the loss; and
b. that it must have been the only cause.
9. What are the requisites for character of goods, or fault in packing or containers to
be an exculpatory cause?
Ans: The following are the requisites:
a. that the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods was caused

by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the
packing or of the containers;
b. that the common carrier had exercised due diligence to forestall or
lessen the loss.
10. Will the seizure or destruction of goods by public authority ipso facto (by the
fact itself) exempts the common carrier?
Ans: No. the seizure or destruction of the goods by order of public authority
does not ipso facto exempt the common carrier from responsibility, unless the
common carrier should prove that the public authority had power to issue the
order.
Note: The burden of proof lies with the common carrier.

11. When will a carrier or shipper be held liable for improper packing of goods?
Ans: If the fact of improper packing is known to the carrier or its servants, or
apparent upon the carrier or its servants, or apparent upon ordinary
observation, but it accepts the goods notwithstanding such condition, it is not
relieved of liability for loss or injury resulting therefrom. (Southern Lines case, L-
16629)
Article 1742 provides that even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration

of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty
nature of the packing or of the containers, the common must exercise due
diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
12. In contract of carriage, when is the responsibility of the carrier commences, and
when will it lasts?
Ans: Under Article 1735, the responsibility of a common carrier is
extraordinary and lasts from the time the goods are placed in its possession until
they are delivered, actually or constructively, to the consignee or to the person
who has a right to received them. It can only be exempt therefrom from the causes
enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code.
13. What is the effect when the shipper use right of stoppage in transitu while the
goods are in transit?
Ans: When the buyer of goods is or becomes insolvent, the unpaid seller
who has parted with the possession of the goods has the right of stopping
them in transit, that is to say, he may resume possession of the goods at any time
while they are in transit, and he will then become entitled to the same rights in
regard to the goods as he would have had if had never parted with possession.
14. What is contributory negligence?

Ans: It is the failure of a person who has been exposed to injury by the fault
or negligence of another, to use such degree of care for his safety and protection
as ordinarily prudent men would use under the circumstances.
15. If the shipper contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, will
it exempt the carrier?
Ans: If the shipper or the owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or
the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the common carrier must
exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
16. Can the party limit the liability of the common carrier to a degree less than
extraordinary diligence? What are the requirements?
Ans: Yes, the parties may enter into such stipulation.
a. in writing, signed by the shipper or owner;

b. supported by valuable consideration other than the service rendered
by the common carrier; and
c. reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. (See Article 1744)
17. What are the stipulations which are unreasonable, unjust, and contrary to public
policy?
Ans: Under Article 1745, the following are the unreasonable, unjust, and
contrary to public policy:
a. the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;

b. the common carrier will not be liable for any loss destruction, or
deterioration of the goods;
c. that the common carrier need not observed say diligence in the
custody of the goods;
d. that the common carrier shall exercise a degree of diligence less
than that a good father of a family, or of a man of ordinary
prudence in the vigilance over the movables transported
e. that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or
omissions of his or its employees;
f. exempting or diminishing the liability of common carrier for acts
committed by thieves or rollers who do not act with grave or
irresistible threat; and
g. exempting the common carrier for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of
the car, vehicle, ship, airplane, or other equipment used in
contract of carriage.
18. What is a Charter Party?

Ans: A charter party is a maritime contract by which the charterer, a party
other than the shipowner, obtains the use and service all or some voyage of a
ship for a period of time or voyage or voyages.

Transportation Law Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Law Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Law Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSPORTATION LAW REVIEWER

1. Distinguish common carrier from a private carrier

2. What is the diligence required in the conduct of business of common carriers?

3. Are private carriers required to exercise the same degree of diligence?

5. Is the above rule absolute? If no, what are the exceptions?

a. Floods, storm, earthquake, lighting, or other natural disaster or

6. What are the requisites for natural disaster or calamity to be an exculpatory

Note: If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the

However, an agreement limiting the common carriers liability for

7. What are the requisites for act of public enemy?

a. that the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods was caused

Note: The burden of proof lies with the common carrier.

Article 1742 provides that even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration

14. What is contributory negligence?

a. in writing, signed by the shipper or owner;

a. the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;

18. What is a Charter Party?

You might also like