Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Dangwa Transportation V CA

    Uploaded by

    Gin Francisco
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision finding the transportation company negligent and liable for damages in a case where a passenger died in a vehicular accident. The Court found that when a public utility bus stops, it is offering rides to passengers, so the driver and conductor should have known the victim intended to board. It is the duty of carriers to stop long enough for safe boarding and not start suddenly while passengers board. In cases involving carrier contracts, carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence if a passenger is injured, rather than requiring proof of negligence from the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dangwa Transportation V CA

    Uploaded by

    Gin Francisco
    4K views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision finding the transportation company negligent and liable for damages in a case where a passenger died in a vehicular accident. The Court found that when a public utility bus stops, it is offering rides to passengers, so the driver and conductor should have known the victim intended to board. It is the duty of carriers to stop long enough for safe boarding and not start suddenly while passengers board. In cases involving carrier contracts, carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence if a passenger is injured, rather than requiring proof of negligence from the plaintiff.

    Original Description:

    Transportation Law

    Original Title

    Dangwa Transportation v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision finding the transportation company negligent and liable for damages in a case where a passenger died in a vehicular accident. The Court found that when a public utility bus stops, it is offering rides to passengers, so the driver and conductor should have known the victim intended to board. It is the duty of carriers to stop long enough for safe boarding and not start suddenly while passengers board. In cases involving carrier contracts, carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence if a passenger is injured, rather than requiring proof of negligence from the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    Dangwa Transportation V CA

    Uploaded by

    Gin Francisco
    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision finding the transportation company negligent and liable for damages in a case where a passenger died in a vehicular accident. The Court found that when a public utility bus stops, it is offering rides to passengers, so the driver and conductor should have known the victim intended to board. It is the duty of carriers to stop long enough for safe boarding and not start suddenly while passengers board. In cases involving carrier contracts, carriers must prove they exercised extraordinary diligence if a passenger is injured, rather than requiring proof of negligence from the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v CA GR No. 95582 Oct.

    7, 1991
    Facts: On May 13, 1985, private respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for the
    death of Pedrito Cudiamat as a result of a vehicular accident which occurred on March 25, 1985 at
    Marivic, Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet. Among others, it was alleged that on said date, while petitioner
    Theodore M. Lardizabal was driving a passenger bus belonging to petitioner corporation in a reckless
    and imprudent manner and without due regard to traffic rules and regulations and safety to persons and
    property, it ran over its passenger, Pedrito Cudiamat. However, instead of bringing Pedrito immediately
    to the nearest hospital, the said driver, in utter bad faith and without regard to the welfare of the victim,
    first brought his other passengers and cargo to their respective destinations before bringing said victim
    to the Lepanto Hospital where he expired.
    Issue: W/N respondent court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court and in finding petitioners
    negligent and liable for the damages claimed.
    Held: No. After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no reason to disturb the above
    holding of the Court of Appeals.
    The contention of petitioners that the driver and the conductor had no knowledge that the victim would
    ride on the bus, since the latter had supposedly not manifested his intention to board the same, does
    not merit consideration. When the bus is not in motion there is no necessity for a person who wants to
    ride the same to signal his intention to board. A public utility bus, once it stops, is in effect making a
    continuous offer to bus riders.
    It is the duty of common carriers of passengers, including common carriers by railroad train, streetcar,
    or motorbus, to stop their conveyances a reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an
    opportunity to board and enter, and they are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers
    resulting from the sudden starting up or jerking of their conveyances while they are doing so.
    It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not
    make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to
    pay the damages sought by the passenger. By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express
    obligation to transport the passenger to destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a
    due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right
    away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that
    negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised
    extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like