Creating undue risk

This is the case of Benito, a customs inspector of the Bureau of Customs with a salary P31,188.25 per annum. His assignment is to board arriving vessels and inspect their cargoes upon their arrival until their departure. One of the vessels assigned to him by his supervisor was the ship of SBD Shipping, " M/T King" containing 750 metric tons of alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer which are inflammable chemicals.

When the vessel arrived, Benito boarded the same to inspect the cargo while it is being unloaded into two barges owned by ITT Towage and Transport Corp. At about 11 a.m. while Benito was inside the cabin preparing reports, a sudden explosion occurred setting the vessel on fire. Upon hearing the explosion, Benito ran out to check what happened. Again he heard another explosion and saw fire.

Seeing the fire and fearing for his life, Benito hurriedly jumped overboard to save himself. Despite the tremendous heat due to the fire that reached the water, Benito was able to swim away. He swam for three hours until he was rescued by squatters near the shore and brought to a hospital.

After weeks of intensive care at the hospital, the attending Physician diagnosed that Benito had suffered the following injuries causing permanent disability: (1) chemical burns on the face and arms;(2) inhalation of fumes from burning chemicals;(3) exposure to the elements while floating in sea water for three hours; (4) blurring of the right eye; and (5) cerebral infract with neo-vascularization, left occipital region with right sided headache. He made demands against both the SBD Shipping and the ITT Corp., However, both denied liability and attributed to each other, negligence. Eventually, Benito sued SBD Shipping who in turn filed a cross claim against ITT Corp.

SBD tried to shift the blame on ITT by presenting alleged eyewitnesses and documents of adjusters and surveyors showing that the explosion originated from the barges of ITT. The testimony of the eyewitness was however stricken off the record because he was not subjected to cross-examination. The documents to prove the origin of the fire were not likewise admitted for being hearsay. So after trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Benito and against SBD Shipping to pay actual damages for loss of earning capacity, moral damages and attorney’s fees. SBD’s cross claim against ITT was also dismissed. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

SBD however still questioned these decisions of the lower courts. It insisted that the fire did not originate from its vessel but from the barges of ITT.

Was SBD correct?

No.

The owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel and the vessel are liable for all natural and proximate damage caused to person and property by reason of negligent management or navigation.

Negligence is the conduct that creates undue risk of harm to another. It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly demand, whereby another person suffers injury. SBD’s vessel was carrying chemical cargo which are dangerously inflammable. Its officers and crew failed to take all necessary precaution to prevent an accident. SBD was therefore negligent and liable for quasi-delict.

The three elements of quasi delict are: (11) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) fault or negligence of the defendant; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages inflicted on the plaintiff. All these elements are present in this case (Smith Bell etc. vs. Borja et.al., G.R. 143008, June 10,2002).

* * *

E-mail us at: [email protected]