Flashcards Studio

MetroLine Freight, a common carrier by road, is contracted to transport 2,500 sacks of refined sugar from Laoag to Manila. The contract requires delivery in good order. During transit, a heavy rain causes a roof panel to leak in the cargo area, dampening 280 sacks. The leak is traced to a defective roof seal that existed before loading and was not detectable at loading. The sugar is non-perishable. Upon arrival, SugarCo Philippines seeks compensation for the damaged sacks, invoking the carrier's duty of vigilance over goods. MetroLine contends that the damage resulted from (i) force majeure (the storm) or (ii) an inherent defect in the sealing material that existed prior to carriage, for which it is not liable, and notes that SugarCo did not request continuous monitoring or special handling. (a) Identify the governing doctrine on the carrier’s liability in transit over goods. (b) Distinguish the standard of care applicable to a common carrier versus a private bailee. (c) Apply the doctrine to the facts and determine whether MetroLine is liable for the 280 damaged sacks, outlining any defenses that could be available and the likely remedy for SugarCo Philippines.