Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    British VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    This document summarizes a court case between Mahtani and British Airways regarding lost luggage. Some key details: - Mahtani booked a flight from Manila to Bombay with a connection in Hong Kong. His luggage did not get transferred for the connecting flight and was lost. - Mahtani sued British Airways and the travel agent for damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in Mahtani's favor, awarding him damages for the lost luggage. - British Airways appealed, arguing Mahtani did not declare a higher valuation for his luggage as required. However, the Supreme Court ruled British Airways waived this defense by not objecting during Mahtani's testimony

    Copyright:

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

    British VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    37 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Mahtani and British Airways regarding lost luggage. Some key details: - Mahtani booked a flight from Manila to Bombay with a connection in Hong Kong. His luggage did not get transferred for the connecting flight and was lost. - Mahtani sued British Airways and the travel agent for damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in Mahtani's favor, awarding him damages for the lost luggage. - British Airways appealed, arguing Mahtani did not declare a higher valuation for his luggage as required. However, the Supreme Court ruled British Airways waived this defense by not objecting during Mahtani's testimony

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    6. BRITISH VS CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Mahtani and British Airways regarding lost luggage. Some key details: - Mahtani booked a flight from Manila to Bombay with a connection in Hong Kong. His luggage did not get transferred for the connecting flight and was lost. - Mahtani sued British Airways and the travel agent for damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in Mahtani's favor, awarding him damages for the lost luggage. - British Airways appealed, arguing Mahtani did not declare a higher valuation for his luggage as required. However, the Supreme Court ruled British Airways waived this defense by not objecting during Mahtani's testimony

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    37 views2 pages

    British VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    This document summarizes a court case between Mahtani and British Airways regarding lost luggage. Some key details: - Mahtani booked a flight from Manila to Bombay with a connection in Hong Kong. His luggage did not get transferred for the connecting flight and was lost. - Mahtani sued British Airways and the travel agent for damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in Mahtani's favor, awarding him damages for the lost luggage. - British Airways appealed, arguing Mahtani did not declare a higher valuation for his luggage as required. However, the Supreme Court ruled British Airways waived this defense by not objecting during Mahtani's testimony

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Page 1 of 2

    BRITISH AIRWAYS VS CA

    FACTS:

    On April 16, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India. He asked Mr.
    Gumar to prepare his travel plans.
    Mr. Gumar purchased a ticket from British Airways (BA).
    Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight to
    Hongkong via PAL, and upon arrival in Hongkong he had to take a connecting flight to
    Bombay on board BA.
    Before departure, Mahtani checked in at PAL counter his two pieces of luggage
    containing his clothings and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hongkong, the
    same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay.
    when Mahtani arrived in Bombay he discovered that his luggage was missing and that
    upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same might have been
    diverted to London.
    After waiting for 1 week, BA finally advised him to file a claim by accomplishing the
    "Property Irregularity Report.
    In the Philippines, on June 11, 1990 Mahtani filed his complaint for damages and
    attorney's fees5 against BA and Mr. Gumar before the RTC.L alleging that the reason for
    the non-transfer of the luggage was due to the latter's late arrival in Hongkong, thus
    leaving hardly any time for the proper transfer of Mahtani's luggage to the BA aircraft
    bound for Bombay.
    The RTC rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani.
    BA is ordered to pay Mahtani P7,000 for the value of the 2 suitcases
    $400 for the value of the contents of the luggage
    P50,000 for moral and exemplary damages and 20% for attorney’s fees and cost of the
    action.
    This decision was affirmed by CA.
    ISSUE: WON the award of the damages was without basis since Mahtani failed to
    declare a higher valuation w/ respect to his luggage.
    RULING: The SC ruled in the negative.
    the nature of an airline's contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: a contract to
    deliver a cargo or merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers to
    their destination. A business intended to serve the traveling public primarily, it is imbued
    with public interest, hence, the law governing common carriers imposes an exacting
    standard. 14 Neglect or malfeasance by the carrier's employees could predictably furnish
    bases for an action for damages. 
    Admittedly, in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value
    is needed to recover a greater amount. Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention
    However, , we have held that benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as
    when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when questions and
    answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked. 
    Given the foregoing postulates, the inescapable conclusion is that BA had waived the
    defense of limited liability when it allowed Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he
    incurred due to the misplacement of his luggage, without any objection.
    Indeed, it is a well-settled doctrine that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by
    counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to
    object. However, such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the
    Page 2 of 2

    objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity
    to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. 25 BA has precisely failed in this regard.
    To compound matters for BA, its counsel failed, not only to interpose a timely objection,
    but even conducted his own cross-examination as well. 

    You might also like