Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Common Carriers

Extraordinary Diligence (2000)

Despite a warning from the police that an attempt to hijack a PAL plane will be made in the following week, the airline did not take extra precautions,   such   as   frisking   of passengers, for fear of being accused of violating human rights. Two days later, an armed hijacker did attempt to hijack a PAL flight to Cebu. Although he was subdued by the other passengers, he managed to fire a shot which hit and killed a female passenger. The victim’s parents sued the airline  for  breach  of  contract,  and  the  airline  raised  the defense of force majeure. Is the airline liable or not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The  airline  is  liable.  In  case  of  death  of  a  passenger, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary  diligence  (Article  1756,  Civil  Code).  The failure  of  the  airline  to  take  extra  precautions  despite  a police warning that an attempt to hijack the plane would be made, was negligence on the part of the airline. Being negligent, it is liable for the death of the passenger. The defense of force majeure is not tenable since the shooting incident would not have happened had the airline taken steps that could have prevented the hijacker from boarding the plane.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Under Article 1763 of the Civil Code, the common carrier is not   required   to   observe   extraordinary   diligence   in preventing injury to its passengers on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers. The common carrier, in that case, is required to exercise only the diligence of a good father of a family; hence, the failure of the airline to take EXTRA precautions in frisking the passengers and by leaving that matter to the security personnel of the airport, does not constitute a breach of that duty so as to make the airline liable. Besides, the use of irresistible  force  by  the  hijackers  was  farce  majeure  that could not have been prevented even by the observance of extraordinary diligence.

From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.

Share this:

Leave a Reply