Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger over whom the common

Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 29 pages.

its employees. Since the accident was due to the fault of a stranger over whom the common carrier had no control, or of which it did not have any prior knowledge to be able to prevent it, the cause of Ysidro's death should be considered a fortuitous event and not the liability of the common carrier. Is a common carrier presumed to be at fault whenever there is death or injury to its passengers, regardless of the cause of death or injury? (2.5%) ANSWER: Yes, by express provision of law, in case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been fault or to have acted negligently unless they proved that they exercised extraordinary diligence. Basis: Article 1756 . In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. a. What kind of diligence is required of common carriers like Yatco for the protection of its passengers? (2.5%) ANSWER: A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious person with a due regard for all the circumstances or simply put, with extraordinary diligence . Basis: Article 1755 . A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances b. Will your answer be the same as your answer in (b) above, if the assailant was another paying passenger who boarded the bus and deliberately stabbed Ysidro to death? (2.5%) ANSWER: My answer will be different. A common carrier is responsible for death or injuries caused by willful acts of other passengers or strangers, only if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented the act Basis: Article 1763 . A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. GV. Florida Transport vs Heirs of Romeo Battung, Jr, GR no. 208802, 14 October 2015 )
Image of page 5
V Ngipol, Martin Yellow Fin Tuna Corporation (Yellow Fin), a domestic corporation, applied for a credit facility in the amount of PhP 50 million with Yengzi Financial Corporation (YFC). The application was approved and the Credit Agreement was signed and took effect. Ysko and Yuan, Yellow Fin Chairman and President, respectively, executed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in favor of YFC wherein they guaranteed the due and full payment and performance of Yellow Fin's guarantee obligations under the credit facility. YFC soon discovered material inconsistencies in the financial statements given by Yellow Fin, drawing YFC to conclude that Yellow Fin committed misrepresentation. Under the Credit Agreement, any misrepresentation by Yellow Fin or its sureties will constitute an event of default. YFC
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 29 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • FelishaK.McCaster
  • Corporation, AOI, Authorized Capital Stock

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes