Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Doctrine in Torts For The Case Tan Vs Northwest Airlines

    Uploaded by

    Liz Lorenzo
    This document summarizes the key points of the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., 327 SCRA 263. It discusses that for an airline to be guilty of willful misconduct in a case, it must be shown that the airline intended to violate the law or persistently disregarded passenger's rights. The court found that the airline was not guilty of willful misconduct when it transported a passenger's baggage on another flight for safety reasons due to weight restrictions. Additionally, no malice or bad faith can be imputed to an airline for transporting baggage on another flight for safety purposes. An airline that breaches its carriage contract is only liable for foreseeable damages and not moral or exemplary damages if it is not shown

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Doctrine in Torts For The Case Tan Vs Northwest Airlines

    Uploaded by

    Liz Lorenzo
    100 views1 page
    This document summarizes the key points of the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., 327 SCRA 263. It discusses that for an airline to be guilty of willful misconduct in a case, it must be shown that the airline intended to violate the law or persistently disregarded passenger's rights. The court found that the airline was not guilty of willful misconduct when it transported a passenger's baggage on another flight for safety reasons due to weight restrictions. Additionally, no malice or bad faith can be imputed to an airline for transporting baggage on another flight for safety purposes. An airline that breaches its carriage contract is only liable for foreseeable damages and not moral or exemplary damages if it is not shown

    Original Description:

    Doctrine in Torts for the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., 327 SCRA 263

    Original Title

    Doctrine in Torts for the Case Tan vs Northwest Airlines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes the key points of the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., 327 SCRA 263. It discusses that for an airline to be guilty of willful misconduct in a case, it must be shown that the airline intended to violate the law or persistently disregarded passenger's rights. The court found that the airline was not guilty of willful misconduct when it transported a passenger's baggage on another flight for safety reasons due to weight restrictions. Additionally, no malice or bad faith can be imputed to an airline for transporting baggage on another flight for safety purposes. An airline that breaches its carriage contract is only liable for foreseeable damages and not moral or exemplary damages if it is not shown

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views1 page

    Doctrine in Torts For The Case Tan Vs Northwest Airlines

    Uploaded by

    Liz Lorenzo
    This document summarizes the key points of the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., 327 SCRA 263. It discusses that for an airline to be guilty of willful misconduct in a case, it must be shown that the airline intended to violate the law or persistently disregarded passenger's rights. The court found that the airline was not guilty of willful misconduct when it transported a passenger's baggage on another flight for safety reasons due to weight restrictions. Additionally, no malice or bad faith can be imputed to an airline for transporting baggage on another flight for safety purposes. An airline that breaches its carriage contract is only liable for foreseeable damages and not moral or exemplary damages if it is not shown

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Doctrine in Torts for the case Tan vs. Northwest Airlines Inc.

    , 327 SCRA 263

    Common Carriers; Air Transportation; Damages; Willful Misconduct; For willful misconduct to exist,
    there must be a showing that the acts complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law,
    or were in persistent disregard of one’s rights.—We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent
    was not guilty of willful misconduct. “For willful misconduct to exist, there must be a showing that the
    acts complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of
    one’s rights. It must be evidenced by a flagrantly or shamefully wrong or improper conduct.”

    Same; Same; Same; Bad Faith; No malice or bad faith may be imputed to an airline where, due to
    weight and balance restrictions, its act of transporting a passenger’s baggage on another plane was
    done as a safety measure.—Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there was nothing in the conduct of
    respondent which showed that they were motivated by malice or bad faith in loading her baggages on
    another plane. Due to weight and balance restrictions, as a safety measure, respondent airline had to
    transport the baggages on a different flight, but with the same expected date and time of arrival in the
    Philippines.

    Same; Same; Same; Same; Where in breaching the contract of carriage the airline is not shown to have
    acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable
    consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had foreseen or could have reasonably
    foreseen.—“Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest
    purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some
    motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.” “Where in breaching the contract of
    carriage the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for
    damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of obligation which the
    parties had foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not include
    moral and exemplary damages.”

    You might also like