TRANSPORTATION LAW- Dec. 3, 2010 I. Air Transportation Lhuiller v.

British Airways case: says that the governing law is the Warsaw Convention issue is jurisdiction high contacting parties countries which are signatories in the Warsaw convention! countries who a"ide with the provisions o# the agree$ent in the WC international #light #light "etween two high contracting parties %according to WC& i$portance to deter$ine i# international #light to 'now the applica"ility o# WC %i# international #light( then WC applies& in this case( international #light %London)Italy& there#ore( WC applies *eld: case shall "e #iled in the: %a& place o# the $ain o##ice o# the airline %London& %"& place where you "ought the tic'et %Italy& %c& place where the incident happened There#ore: +hilippine court has no jurisdiction over the case( case dis$issed #or lac' o# jurisdiction I, -,. CA/.: -ne guy #ro$ Iloilo or Bacolod who joined a gol# tourna$ent in Bang'o' *e needed to pass /ingapore and so he "ought tic'et #ro$ +AL going to /ingapore since +AL has no direct #light #ro$ /ingapore to Bang'o' he got a British Airways tic'et going to Thailand #ro$ /ingapore *e arrived using +AL0s plane "ut British Airways would not accept the$ "ecause the tic'et was not indorsed "y +AL BA: i# we accept this tic'et( there is a possi"ility that +AL will not pay us *e was not a"le to use the 1uestioned tic'et and 2aruda Airways going to Bang'o' /o$e o# the$ got sic' "ecause o# the hassle and so was not a"le to play gol# When they got "ac' in the +hils( they #iled a case #or da$ages #or "reach o# contact against +AL +AL #iled $otion to dis$iss I//3./ 4. /hould the case "e #iled against BA5 6. 7o the +hilippine courts have jurisdiction over the case given it is a #light #ro$ /ingapore to Thailand5 8. 7oes the WC apply5 *.L7

,o. When he purchased tic'et #ro$ +AL( +AL only used BA as their agent "y virtue o# an agree$ent "etween airlines and the $ain carrier is +AL and so +AL should "e the one sued. 6. 9es. The cause o# contract here is not a "reach o# contact o# carriage "ut the negligence o# +AL in co$$unicating the tic'et to the British .$"assy as #ar as the connection is concerned. ,ote that the negligence happened "e#ore contact o# carriage was e##ected. 8. ,o. The cause o# action is not the contract o# carriage "ut +AL0s negligence $a'ing the WC not applica"le. ,-T.: Co$pare the Lhuiller case and this case

4.

II. -BLI2ATI-,/ -: T*. +A;TI./ A. <igilance over the Cargo 4=88. .>traordinary diligence is re1uired 4=8?. +resu$ption o# negligence in case o# loss( da$age or deterioration 2;: as long as it is shown that there is da$age then the co$$on carrier %CC& could "e $ade lia"le .@+: CC could prove that it has e>ercised e>traordinary diligence over the goods 4=8A. Coverage o# e>traordinary diligence lasts #ro$ the ti$e the cargoes are conditionally placed in the position o# and receivedBaccepted #or transportation "y the carrier to "e delivered to the consignee( without prejudice to 4=8C 4=8=. .ven i# the cargoes are te$porarily unloaded( CC is still o"ligated to e>ercise e>traordinary diligence 3,L.// the shipperBowner avails o# the right to stoppage in transitu stoppage in transitu right o# an unpaid vendor to stop the ship$ent or transportation o# the cargo to the consignee "ecause the consignee is not capa"le o# paying hi$( and so the vessel "eco$es a warehouse( there#ore shall e>ercise the diligence o# the good #ather o# a #a$ily and not e>traordinary diligence 4=8C. CC has to continue to operate with e>traordinary diligence even i# the goods are placed in the warehouse at the place o# destination. :act that it has reached the destination and place o# the warehouse it doesn0t #ollow that the e>traordinary diligence has already ceased to e>ist. It would only cease to e>ist i# CC has given a reasona"le ti$e and given notice to the consignee to release the sa$e I# there is actual or constructive delivery( e>traordinary diligence ceases to e>ist

Actual delivery cargoes were given to the consignee and the consignee receives the cargoes. Constructive delivery notice was already given to the consignee regarding the arrival o# the cargoes and the consignee was already given a reasona"le ti$e to release it even i# there is no actual release

In cargoes( i# there is delay( then one o# the options o# the shipper is to a"andon the cargo once in transit and as' #or the #ull price o# the cargo. But to "e a"le to do so( ;e1uisites: 4. there should "e a de$and in writing addressed to the CC stating your intention to a"andon the goods 6. it shall "e done "e#ore the cargo reaches the destination B. T;A,/+-;TATI-, -: +A//.,2.;/ %CC& 4. -"ligation to accept the passengers without discri$ination