Relevant Provisions in Torts and Damages Relating to Seafarers

Tests of Negligence:

1.) Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, there is negligence
(AQUINO, Torts and Damages, supra at 42)
2.) Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course
pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against harm (Id. At 43)

In the case of Picart vs Smith, conduct is negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
disregard of the conduct or guarding against its consequences.

Duties of Common Carriers

- Common carriers are required to exercise EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance over their
passengers and transported goods, according to all the circumstances of each case (CIVIL CODE,
Art. 1733)
- In case of gratuitous passengers, a stipulation limiting the common carrier’s liability for
negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross negligence. The reduction of fare does not
justify any limitation of the common carrier’s liability (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1758)
- In case of accommodation passengers, the diligence owed to them is only ordinary diligence
(Lara vs Valencia).

Seaworthiness includes:

- The fitness of the vessel itself to withstand the rigors or vicissitudes of the voyage
- Fitness of the vessel to store the cargoes and accommodate passengers to be transported
- The vessel is adequately and properly manned with a sufficient number of competent officers
and crew

The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition the vessel involved in its contract of
carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Art. 1755.

Limitation of Liability on Contract of Carriage of Goods (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1744)

- The parties may stipulate that the degree of diligence be less than extraordinary provided that
the contract be:
o In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
o Supported by valuable consideration other than the service rendered by common
carrier; and
o Reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy

5) In the case of Filcar Transport Service vs Espinas. supra 81-82). he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs CA) Doctrine of Assumption of Risk . Clear showing that in the selection and supervision of his employees. . Torts. the employer is not the actual tortfeasor but the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another. 1146) . An action based on quasi-delict prescribes in 4 years from the date of the accident – to be counted from the last element of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff. Employer is liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks even though the employer is not engaged in any business or industry (CIVIL CODE. A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent or reckless conduct of the defendant cannot recover from such harm (SANGCO. Par. Art.Vicarious Liability of Employer . Defense of Employer . 2180. Prescription (CIVIL CODE. Art.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.