Case Digest (G.R. No. 9403)
Facts:
Allan A. Bryan et al. v. Eastern & Australian S. S. Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 9403, November 04, 1914, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiffs (passengers) sued Eastern & Australian S. S. Co., Ltd. (defendant carrier) to recover P1,915.30 for loss and damage to baggage allegedly caused by the carrier’s negligent handling; damages were stipulated at P1,188.The facts as found by the trial court show that the steamship St. Albans, owned by defendant, arrived at Manila on January 7, 1913. Plaintiffs’ trunks were taken from the ship in a single-rope sling and, while being lowered several feet above the wharf, the winchman “let go” with excessive rapidity; the sling struck the ship’s side, released the trunks and they fell into the water. Eyewitnesses—Deputy Collector J. S. Stanley and pier foreman I. V. Chapman—testified that a proper rope-net sling or chute would have prevented the trunks’ falling and that a chute was being prepared but was not yet in place when the trunks fell.
Defendant admitted the damage but pleaded as a special defense an exemption/limitation clause printed on the reverse of the first-class tickets sold in Shanghai and governing the carriage from Hong Kong to Manila. The clause stated, among other things, that 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.” Plaintiffs had not booked their baggage as freight and had not been specially pointed to the back of the tickets when issued; they were English-literate and received tickets stating on their face that they were “issued subject to the conditions printed on the back.”
Defendant produced a Hong Kong barrister who testified that under the law of England and her colonies such printed conditions are validly incorporated into the contract and need not be brought specially to the purchaser’s attention. The trial court found defendant negligent and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under the governing law, should the exemption clause printed on the back of the ticket, valid where made, be enforced in the Philippines to relieve the carrier of liability?
- Does the broad wording of the ticket’s exemption clause bar recovery for loss caused by the carrier’s negligent handling of baggage when the clause does not specifically mention negligence?
- Were plaintiffs precluded from recovery because they did not have their baggage booked and paid for as...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)