PRACTICE QUESTION in Transportation Law

1. What is the test for determining whether a party is a common carrier or not?

2. Mindanao Terminal & Brokerage Service is a stevedoring company charged with loading and stowing of cargoes. What degree of care is required of it in the handling of cargoes? Why?

3. Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), owned by Virgines Calvo, entered into a contract with San Miguel Corp. (SMC) for the transfer of 114 reels of semi-chemical fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board from Port Area, Manila to SMC's warehouse at the Tabacalera Compound, Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila. The cargo was insured by UCPB Gen. Insurance. What degree of care is required of TCTSI? Why?

4. In cases involving breach of a contract of carriage, who has the burden of proof? Who has the burden of evidence? Explain.

5. True of False (Give a short explanation):

(a) In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its non-performance by the carrier.

(b) in an action for breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent.

(c) If the goods are lost the common carrier is presumed to be at fault, in any case.

(d) In a contract of carriage, when a passenger dies, the trial court need not even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the common carrier.

(e) In a contract of carriage of passengers, any discourteous conduct on the part of the employees of the common carrier towards a passenger is actionable. (Northwest Airlines vs Catapang, 594 SCRA 401)

(f) In case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the driver of the other vehicle, both drivers and the owners of both vehicles are jointly and severally liable.

6. A group of students contracted a bus for a field trip. The bus met an accident due to the driver's fault. The employer claimed that it was not liable since the group was directly responsible for the trip; and that the employer is not a common carrier. Rule on the employer's argument.

7. In cases where the common carrier invokes the stipulations printed on the ticket to limit its liability for the loss of the goods, and wherein all that the shipper has to do is to sign it or accept it, can the latter validly argue that the ticket is a contract of adhesion and, thus, should be construed against the carrier? Explain.

8. A passenger bus slowed down when a man signaled the bus to stop as he wanted to board the same. As soon as the man stepped on the platform of the bus, the bus driver accelerated. The man lost his footing, slipped and was ran over, thereby causing his death. The heirs of the victim sued the bus company. By way of defense, the bus company argued that there was no perfected contract of carriage yet at the time of the accident. Rule on the issue, with reasons.

9. As a passenger bus slowed down while approaching the loading and unloading area, a man started to board it even if the bus was still moving and had not yet reached the designated bus stop. To discourage the man from fully boarding the bus, the driver accelerated and drove off. The man lost his footing, slipped and his foot was ran over and crushed under the wheel of the moving bus. Is the bus company liable under the circumstances? Why?

10. A stipulation printed on a bus ticket states that any action arising from the contract of carriage must be prosecuted in Cebu only. Is such a stipulation valid or binding? Why?

11. A married couple, together with their little child were passengers of a La Mailorca bus. The bus and its passengers reached the destination terminal safely and were able to disembark without any untoward incident. While waiting for their baggage to be unloaded, the child walked in front of another approaching bus, was ran over, and died on the spot. The parents sued the La Mailorca bus company seeking to recover damages. The bus company claimed that its obligations as a common carrier had already ceased upon delivery of the passengers to their point of destination. Decide with reasons.

12. A passenger bus was traveling along its designated route. Suddenly, a newly installed, brand new tire exploded, for no apparent reason. Consequently, the bus driver lost control and the bus crashed, resulting in the death of a passenger. Is the common carrier liable for damages? Explain.

13. A married couple with two children were on board a Pantranco bus bound for Baguio. While negotiating Kennon Road, the engine stalled and the bus started to roll backwards. However, the driver was able to expertly and skillfully guide the bus to the shoulder and prevented the bus from falling off the cliff. However, while the driver was busy, and because of the confusion, noise and panic, the 2 children became frightened and jumped out of the window and died. Can Pantranco be held liable? Why?

14. While travelling, the driver of a Philippine Rabbit bus lost control of the steering mechanism. The bus hit a rut and it turn-turtled, killing a passenger. The mechanics later found out that the worn-out gear of the steering wheel had a crack, which could not be seen by the naked eye from the outside. Philippine Rabbit was able to prove that the defect was attributed to General Motors USA; and that the defect was a factory defect which could not have been discovered by expert mechanics. Could the bus company be held liable for the death of the passenger? Why?

15. A Batangas Trans bus while on its way to its next destination, stopped on the highway to allow a passenger to alight. Another bus, owned by another bus company, coming from the opposite direction, tried to pass a karetela but miscalculated the distance and hit the Batangas Trans bus which was not moving. The impact caused the disembarking passenger to be thrown out and killed. Under the circumstances, who is liable for the death of the passenger of the Batangas Trans bus? Why?

16. True or False (give a short explanation):

(a) The negligence of an employee who acted beyond the scope of his authority and in willful disobedience to the instructions of the common carrier, is binding upon the latter.

(b) The bus company is not liable for lost baggage, for which no freight charges were collected by the company.

(c) The common carrier cannot be held liable for lost baggage that was eventually recovered and delivered to the passenger.

(d) The common carrier IS not liable for the acts of its off-duty security guard who kills a co-passenger.

(e) The rule that contributory negligence on the part of the passenger will not absolve the common carrier from liability is absolute.

17. A passenger insisted on hanging on the side of the bus despite repeated warnings from the driver. The driver would stop to force the passenger to disembark, but once the driver turned his back, the passenger would once again hang on to the bus. Later, the passenger was crushed to death when the bus he was hanging on overtook another vehicle. Can the common carrier be held liable for the death of the victim Why?

18. When can moral damages be awarded against a common carrier in an action for breach of contract of carriage?

19. A public road is so narrow that it could barely accommodate 2 buses, whether for overtaking or for 2-way traffic. A passenger placed his elbow outside the window of the bus, which was hit by an oncoming bus coming from the other direction. The injury was so great that the arm of the passenger had to be amputated. Is the carrier liable? Why?

20. Give the four (4) requisites in order for an event or incident to be classified as "caso fortuito".