Central shipping co vs Insurance Co of North America

- the carrier here was made liable for the loss of the goods. They contended it was because of storm but it was really not because according to pagasa storm is 10-11 beaufort scale and in the case at bar it was only around 7-8. Besides if there really was storm, it should be only made a defence when it is the proximate and only cause of the happening of the event, in the case at bar it was established that such shifting of the logs in the hold to improper stowage may have caused the sinking as well.

2. No. The doctrine of limited liability under Article 587 of the Code of Commerce is not applicable to the present case. This rule does not apply to situations in which the loss or the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and the captain.

FGU INSURANCE VS CA

Barge with tugboat delivering cases of beer to Antique from Mandaue. The SMC requested for Anco to transfer the boat to a safer place but Anco did not heed the request as it was confident that their boat can withstand such not considering the fact that they are the only ones left, at midnight barge run aground and was broken and cargoes of beer were swept away.

FGU is exempt from liability.

No exercise of extra ordinary diligence. Not a fortuitous event because it for it to be one, must be unforseen and inevtable , in this it could have been avoided if there was diligence done.

In this case,there was blatant negligence on the part of M/T ANCOs crewmembers, first in leaving the engine-less barge D/B Lucio at the mercy of the storm without the assistance of the tugboat, and again in failing to heed the request of SMCs representatives to have the barge transferred to a safer placeWhen evidence show that the insureds negligence or recklessness is so gross as to be sufficient to constitute a willful act, the insurer must be exonerated. ANCOs employees is of such gross character that it amounts to a wrongful act which must exonerate FGU from liability under the insurance contract. Both the D/B Lucio and the M/T ANCO were blatantly negligent-----------------Lea Mer IndustriesWON loss of cargo due to fortuitous event. Evidence insufficient.

To excuse the common carrier fully of any liability, the fortuitous event must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss.30 Moreover, it should have exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of the fortuitous event

1. In the case at bar, no evidence that the carrier attempted to minimize or prevent loss and fortuitous event

2. Second, the alleged fortuitous event was not the sole and proximate cause of the loss. There is a preponderance of evidence that the barge was not seaworthy when it sailed for Manila. Respondent was able to prove that, in the hull of the barge, there were holes that might have caused or aggravated the sinking. Because the presumption of negligence or fault applied to petitioner, it was incumbent upon it to show that there were no holes; or, if there were, that they did not aggravate the sinking.-----LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC. (petitioner) v. PIONEER ASIA INSURANCE CORPLeft Manila at 12:50 with good weather condition, at 4:30 morning, captain ordered the vessel to be forced aground. Consequently, the entire shipment of cement was good as gone due to exposure to sea water. Petitioner thus failed to deliver the goods to the consignee in Manila.

ISSUE: Whether the loss of the cargo was due to force majeure (or due to petitioners failure to exercise extraordinary diligence.)

Carrier failed to rebut the presumption. Claims are unsubstantiated. Records show that in the evening of June 24, 1984, the sea and weather conditions in the vicinity of Negros Occidental were calm. The records reveal that petitioner took a shortcut route, instead of the usual route, which exposed the voyage to unexpected hazard. Petitioner has only itself to blame for its misjudgment---------

Notice of Claim, when? (immediately if the damage is apparent, or otherwise within twenty-four hours from receipt of the goods)

Phil Charter Insurance vs Chemoil Lighterage

On 24 January 1991, Samkyung Chemical Company, Ltd., shipped 62.06 metric tons of the liquid chemical on board MT TACHIBANA to the Philippines to consignee Plastic Group Phils which cargo was insured by PHIC.

Upon inspection by PGP, the samples taken from the shipment showed discoloration demonstrating that it was damaged.

Upond delivery within PGP called Ms. Abastillas and give notice of such. Carrier denies telelphone call as notice but court held that a telephone call made to defendant-company could constitute substantial compliance with the requirement of notice. Bust most importantly, must be within the time required, no records from RTC or CA that states such notice was givin within the time .

-------Diaz vs CATaxi owned by Diaz bumped Cargo killing 9 taxi passenges.WON Diaz LiableYes, as a common carrier it is bound to cary the passenger safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

Upon the happening of accident, presumption arose that the pet was negligent. Failed to rebut such presumption therefore liable.

------Burden on Common CarrierRCL v Netherlands Insurance Company

405 cartons of Epoxy Molding Compound were consigned to be shipped from Singapore to Manila for Temic Telefunken Microelectronics Philippines . The forwarder in Singapore loaded the the refrigerated container on board the M/V Piya Bhum, a vessel owned by RCL, with which Pacific Eagle had a slot charter agreement. RCL duly issued its own Bill of Lading in favor of Pacific Eagle (forwared).

There was showing of consistent temp chart however upon unloading, such temp fluctuated. Rocha believed the fluctuation was caused by the burnt condenser fan motor of the refrigerated container. Cargo damaged.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly held RCL and EDSA Shipping liable as common carriers under the theory of presumption of negligence.

HELD: Yes. A common carrier is presumed to have been negligent if it fails to prove that it exercised extraordinary vigilance over the goods it transported. To overcome the presumption, must show that they exercised extra ordinary diligence of goods and not just show other persons liable. Althoug there is showing that such fluctuation happend after it has been unloaded It is settled in maritime law jurisprudence that cargoes while being unloaded generally remain under the custody of the carrier; RCL and EDSA Shipping failed to dispute this.

They could have offered eveidence that such damage did not occur while , (1) while the cargo was in transit; (2) while they were in the act of discharging it from the vessel; or (3) while they were delivering it actually or constructively to the consignee.

Or they could have rebutted the presumption instead of filing a demurrer .As the order granting their demurrer was reversed on appeal, the CA correctly ruled that they are deemed to have waived their right to present evidence, and the presumption of negligence must stand.

----------DEFENSE IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGER:

MRR vs Ballesteros

Bus driver went down to change spark plugs when this palailog tawo Abello took the wheel. Despite the many request to take over the wheel driver Anastacio failed. Bus figured an accident injuring 17 passengers.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may be held liable on account of such negligence, considering that he was not its employee.

Yes. The defense put up by the respondent that Abello was not their employee was correctly overruled by the trial court. It is Art 1763 and not 1759 that shall apply.

Art. 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilfull 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.

Sec. 48(b). No professional chauffeur shall permit any unlicensed person to drive the motor vehicle under his control, or permit a person, sitting beside him or in any other part of the car, to interfere with him in the operation of the motor vehicle, by allowing said person to take hold of the steering wheel, or in any other manner take part in the manipulation or control of the car.------

Bacarro vs Castano

Montefalcon drove the jeep fast at 40kph, cargo truck signalled that it will overtake. Montefalcon did not slow down. Thereafter as the jeep was left behind, its driver was unable to return it to its former lane and instead it obliquely or diagonally ran down an inclined terrain towards the right until it fell into a ditch pinning down and crushing Castanos right leg in the process. Passenger injured

ISSUES:1. Whether or not there was a contributory negligence on the part of the jeepney driver.

Yes. Had he slacken the speed of jeep when Cargo overtook, there would have been no contact and accident. 2. Whether or not extraordinary diligence is required of the jeepney driver when the diligence required pursuant to Article 1763 of the New Civil Code is only that of a good father of a family since the injuries were caused by the negligence of a stranger; Yes, because there was a contract of carriage between carrier and passenger, basing from 1733, 1755 and 1766 of the Civil Code which require the exercise of extraordinary diligence on the part of petitioner Montefalcon.

3. Whether or not the sideswiping is a fortuitous event. It cannot be considered as such, the even although unforseen could have been prevented. ---Cangco V Maniala Railroad

took train using free pass. Stood up before train halted, stepped on sack of watermelon and fell , hand crushed by train.

It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of watermelons. MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop.

WON victim guilty of contributory negligence: NO

If there was, it is not the stepping on the melon but rather the early or premature standing when the train has not halted completly. However considering other facts, his a young man, familiar with this as he commutes daily, the step where he had to take is safe or at least not hard to take so such was not char by imprudence.Our conclusion is that the conduct of the plaintiff in undertaking to alight while the train was yet slightly under way was not characterized by imprudence and that therefore he was not guilty of contributory negligence.

The place, as we have already stated, was dark, or dimly lighted, and this also is proof of a failure upon the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty owing by it to the plaintiff; for if it were by any possibility concede that it had right to pile these sacks in the path of alighting passengers, the placing of them adequately so that their presence would be revealed.-------

Isaac v Ammen Tranpo

Bus owned by respondent collided with a motor vehicle of the pick-up type coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which plaintiff's left arm was completely severed and the severed portion fell inside the bus. ( Plaintiff was rushed to a hospital in Iriga, Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to save his life. After four days, he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco, Albay, where he under went treatment for three months. He was moved later to the Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on and stayed there for another two months. For these services, he incurred expenses amounting to P623.40, excluding medical fees which were paid by defendant).

Resp said injury caused by drvier of the pick up and to the contributory negligence of plaintiff himself.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was contributory negligence on the part of appelant (and what is its effect on the liability of the bus driver)

Yes. he seated himself on the left side thereof resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left elbow outside the window, this being his position in the bus when the collision took place.

On the bus driver, when confronted with sudden emregcny he is obliged to act quickly and without a chance of deliberation must be taken into account. He is held to some degree of diligence, must exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would exercise under like circumstances and conditions, and and the failure on his part to exercise the best judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part

It is true that Isaac's contributory negligence cannot relieve A.L. Ammen of its liability but will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762, new Civil Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by Isaac.-------

Compania Maritima v CA

Payloader sent from Manila to CDO. In the course of unloading, swivel pin of the heel block Hatch, causing the payloader to fall. It was later on discovered that such payloader was actually heavier than what it was declared in the BOL. (7.5 tons and not 2.5 t)

CFI dismissed, prox caus is the ommisionCA - reveresed. Carrier still liable but liabiliby reduced because of the cont negligence of Concepcion.

Issue: WON the act of private respondent Concepcion in furnishing petitioner Compaia Maritima with an inaccurate weight was the proximate cause of the damage, as would absolutely exempt petitioner from liability for damages. NO.

When goods ship okay and arrived bad, there is a prima facie case against carrier. CArriers defense in 1734 cannot be had because it is not the proximate and only cause. The emps were not exercising extraordinary diligence. Used 5 ton capacity lifting apartus on a payloader that looks so big and heavy. Also, conception emps who wrote in the BOL did not actually see the payloader, also the people at the carrier's office did not also check if it items reflected correctly with the BOL. The Chief Officer took the bill of lading on its face value and presumed the same to be correct by merely "seeing" it.

Acknowledging that there was a "jumbo" in the MV Cebu (w/ a 20-25 ton capacity), The Chief Officer chose not to use it. Extraordinary care and diligence compel the use of the "jumbo" lifting apparatus as the most prudent course for petitioner.

Carrier, liable but reduced because of the cont neg of Conception. Still liable, not excused. -------Del Prado

Meralco's motorman did not ease up the car completely when Del Prado ran accross the street to catch a car causing the left foot of Del Prado to crush when the car accelerated. Filed a complaint for culpa contractual.

ISSUES:(1) Whether the motorman was negligent. Yes. Although not his duty to stop but he is duty bound to do no act that would have the effect of increasing the plaintiff's peril while he was attempting to board the car. The premature acceleration of the car was, in our opinion, a breach of this duty.

(2) Whether Meralco is liable for breach of contract of carriage. Yes. the defense of due diligence can only exculpate one where liability arises from a mere tort (culpa aquiliana) but not one arising from a breach of contract or culpa contractual. There is obligation of carrier here so liable.

(3) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. YEs but it was not the direct and the proximate cause, it was the negligence of the motorman in putting on the power prematurely.Applying the the last clear chance doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.

(3) It is obvious that the plaintiff's negligence in attempting to board the moving car was not the proximate cause of the injury. The direct and proximate cause of the injury was the act of appellant's motorman in putting on the power prematurely. Again, the situation before us is one where the negligent act of the company's servant succeeded the negligent act of the plaintiff, and the negligence of the company must be considered the proximate cause of the injury. The rule here applicable seems to be analogous to, if not identical with that which is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of "the last clear chance." In accordance with this doctrine, the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. The negligence of the plaintiff was, however, contributory to the accident and must be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

----

PNRBut while petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as required by law, 8 it appears that the deceased was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he opted to sit on the open platform between the coaches of the train, he should have held tightly and tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the side of said platform to avoid falling off from the speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not exempting the PNR from liability, nevertheless justified the deletion of the amount adjudicated as moral damages. By the same token, the award of exemplary damages must be set aside. Exemplary damages may be allowed only in cases where the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There being no evidence of fraud, malice or bad faith on the part of petitioner, the grant of exemplary damages