Alicante. belonging to Compania Transatlantica de Barcelona was transporting two locomotor boilers for the Manila Railroad Company. The equipment of the ship for dispatching the heavy lading was non strong plenty to manage the boilers. Compania Transatlantica contracted the services of Atlantic gulf and Pacific Co. . which had the best equipment to raise the boilers out of the ship’s clasp. When Alicante arrived in Manila. Atlantic company sent out its drifting Crane under the charge of one Leyden.
When the first boiler was being hoisted out of the ship’s clasp. the boiler could non be brought out because the sling was non decently placed and the caput of the boiler was caught under the border of the hatch. The weight on the Crane was increased by a strain estimated at 15 dozenss with the consequence that the overseas telegram of the catapulting broke and the boiler fell to the underside of the ship’s clasp. The sling was once more adjusted and the boiler was once more upraised but as it was being brought up the bolt at the terminal of the derrick broke and the boiler fell once more.
The boiler was so severely damaged that it had to be shipped back to England to be rebuilt. The amendss suffered by Manila Railroad amounted to P23. 343. 29. Manila Railroad so filed an action against the Streamship Company to retrieve said amendss. The Steamship Company caused Atlantic Company to be brought as co-defendant controversy that Atlantic Company as an independent contractor. who had undertaken to dispatch the boilers had become responsible for the harm.
The Court of First Instance decided in favour of Manila Railroad. the complainant. against Atlantic Company and absolved the Steamship Company. Manila Railroad appealed from the determination because the Steamship Company was non held apt besides. Atlantic Company besides appealed from the judgement against it.
Issue:
- Be the Steamship Company apt to Manila Railroad for presenting the boiler in a damaged status?
- Was Atlantic Company apt to the Steamship Company for the sum it may be required to pay the complainant?
- Was Atlantic Company straight apt to plaintiff as held by the test tribunal?
Opinion:
There was a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Manila Railroad. There was besides a contractual relation between the Steamship Company and Atlantic. But there was no contractual relation between the Railroad Company and Atlantic Company.
There was no inquiry that the Steamship Company was apt to Manila Railroad as it had the duty to transport the boiler in a proper mode safe and firmly under the fortunes required by jurisprudence and imposts. The Steamship Company can non get away liability merely because it employed a competent independent contractor to dispatch the boiler.
Atlantic Company claimed that it was non apt. because it had employed all the diligence of a good male parent of a household and proper attention in the choice of Leyden. Said statement was non well-founded. because said defence was non applicable to negligence originating in the class of the public presentation of a contractual duty. The same can be said with regard to the liability of Atlantic Company upon its contract with the Steamship Company. There was a differentiation between carelessness in the public presentation of a contractual duty ( culpa contractual ) and negligence considered as an independent beginning of duty ( culpa aquiliana ) .
Atlantic Company wasis liable to the Steamship Company for the harm brought upon the latter by the failure of Atlantic Company to utilize due attention in dispatching the boiler. regardless of the fact that the harm was caused by the carelessness of an employee who was qualified for the work. punctually chose with due attention.
Since there was no contract between the Railroad Company and Atlantic Company. Railroad Company can had no right of action to retrieve amendss from Atlantic Company for the wrongful act which constituted the misdemeanor of the contract. The rights of Manila Railroad can merely be made effectual through the Steamship Company with whom the contract of affreightment was made.
