Bryan Vs Eastern Digest

[G.R. No. 9403. November 4, 1914.
]
ALLAN A. BRYAN ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EASTERN & AUSTRALIAN S. S. CO.,
LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
Facts:
The plaintiffs were passengers on the streamer St. Albans, which was the property of the defendant
corporation and was engaged in carrying freight and passengers between Shanghai, China, and Manila,
Philippine Islands.
On or about the end of December, 1912, the plaintiffs bought from the defendants agent in Shanghai,
two first-class tickets for Manila aboard steamship St. Albans. The tickets delivered to them were in
English, which language plaintiffs read with ease and understand perfectly, and bore on their face, in large
print, a statement that they were issued subject to the conditions printed on the back. One of these
conditions, printed in legible type, was as follows: "Personal baggage. In order to insure as far as
possible the safe custody of luggage, passengers should personally see their luggage delivered on board.
Each adult saloon passenger may carry, free of charge, but at his own risk, 20 cubic feet of luggage; and
each steerage passenger 10 cubic feet, under similar conditions (all in excess of these quantities must be
paid for at the current rate of freight); but the company will not hold itself responsible for any loss, or
damage to or detention, or overcarriage of luggage, under any circumstances whatsoever unless it has
been booked and paid for as freight."
At the time the tickets were delivered to plaintiffs in Shanghai their attention was not especially
drawn to the provisions on the back of the ticket. The plaintiffs put their baggage on the St. Albans
without paying for its transportation as freight and traveled with such baggage to Manila.
Shortly after its arrival in Manila,the plaintiffs baggage was taken out of the hold of the ship to be
placed on the dock alongside of which the vessel was berthed. The baggage was placed in a sling,
consisting of a single rope wound once around the trunks, and was swung from the side of the vessel.
While still several feet above the wharf, the employee of the defendant company who was operating the
winch, by some act or other, permitted the baggage to drop with great rapidity. In its passage downward,
it struck the side of the ship with such force as to release it from the sling and it dropped into the water
alongside of the ship.
The defendant, while admitting the damage caused to plaintiffs baggage, denied that it was the result
of the companys negligence and set up as a special defense the limitation of liability established by the
contract under which the defendant undertook to transport the plaintiffs from the city of Hongkong to
Manila.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The shipping company appealed.
Issues: 1. What law should govern the contract between plaintiffs and respondent company.
2. Whether respondent company is liable for the negligence of its employees.
Held: 1. A contract made in Hongkong for the transportation of persons and baggage from Hongkong to
Manila will be construed according to the law of the Colony of Hongkong and will be enforced in the
Philippine Islands in accordance with that law, provided it is not in violation of a law or the public policy
of the Philippine Islands.
The evidence relative to the law governing contracts in Hongkong consists of the testimony of a
Hongkong barrister, learned in the law of England and her colonies, and is to the effect that, under the law
inforce at the place where the contract was made, the contract was valid and enforceable, and that it is not
necessary that the attention of persons purchasing tickets from common carriers be drawn specially to the
terms thereof when printed upon a ticket which on its face shows that it is issued subject to such
conditions.The barrister also testified that under the law of England and her colonies everything was done
which was necessary to make the terms printed on the back of the tickets a part of the contract between
the parties. Herein, it is undoubted that the contract found upon the back of the tickets is a contract
perfectly valid in England and her colonies and one which would be enforced according to its terms in
British jurisdictions.
2. The respondent company is liable for the negligence of its employees.
An exemption in general words not expressly relating to negligence, even though the words are wide
enough to include loss by negligence or default of carriers servants, must be construed as limiting the
liability of the carrier as assurer, and not as relieving him from the duty of exercising reasonable skill and
care. Unless the contract of exemption specifically refers to exemption for negligence, it will be construed
as simply exempting the carrier from his liability as insurer.

Bryan Vs Eastern Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bryan Vs Eastern Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Bryan Vs Eastern Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 9403. November 4, 1914.

You might also like