Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 159 views

    047 - Sarasola V Sontua

    Uploaded by

    Keeno Guevarra
    The court found that both vessels, the Mercedes and the Y. Sontua, were at fault for the collision based on the evidence presented. While the Y. Sontua changing its course was the primary cause, the Mercedes failed to maintain its course and could have avoided the collision if it had. As both vessels were at fault, according to Article 827 of the Code of Commerce, each vessel must be liable for its own damages from the collision and jointly responsible for any cargo losses. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Mercedes' owner was reversed and the complaint dismissed with no costs awarded.

    Copyright:

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

    047 - Sarasola V Sontua

    Uploaded by

    Keeno Guevarra
    159 views1 page
    The court found that both vessels, the Mercedes and the Y. Sontua, were at fault for the collision based on the evidence presented. While the Y. Sontua changing its course was the primary cause, the Mercedes failed to maintain its course and could have avoided the collision if it had. As both vessels were at fault, according to Article 827 of the Code of Commerce, each vessel must be liable for its own damages from the collision and jointly responsible for any cargo losses. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Mercedes' owner was reversed and the complaint dismissed with no costs awarded.

    Original Description:

    Sarasola v Sontua Transportation law

    Original Title

    047 - Sarasola v Sontua.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court found that both vessels, the Mercedes and the Y. Sontua, were at fault for the collision based on the evidence presented. While the Y. Sontua changing its course was the primary cause, the Mercedes failed to maintain its course and could have avoided the collision if it had. As both vessels were at fault, according to Article 827 of the Code of Commerce, each vessel must be liable for its own damages from the collision and jointly responsible for any cargo losses. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Mercedes' owner was reversed and the complaint dismissed with no costs awarded.

    Copyright:

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

    047 - Sarasola V Sontua

    Uploaded by

    Keeno Guevarra
    The court found that both vessels, the Mercedes and the Y. Sontua, were at fault for the collision based on the evidence presented. While the Y. Sontua changing its course was the primary cause, the Mercedes failed to maintain its course and could have avoided the collision if it had. As both vessels were at fault, according to Article 827 of the Code of Commerce, each vessel must be liable for its own damages from the collision and jointly responsible for any cargo losses. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Mercedes' owner was reversed and the complaint dismissed with no costs awarded.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-22630 January 31, 1925


    GORGONIO DE SARASOLA vs. YU BIAO SONTUA
    Facts:

    Court declared that as far as can be judicially determined, the collision between the two vessels was
    caused by an improper maneuver by the captain of the Y. Sontua. The result therefore, must be to
    hold the owner of the Y. Sontua responsible to the owner of the Mercedes for the damage caused to
    the Mercedes by the collision.
    the defendant filed a motion for a reconsideration in which they contend that, assuming, without
    conceding, that the collision "was caused by an improper maneuver by the captain of the Y. Sontua,
    the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and for such reason, he ought not to recover."
    article 826 of the Code of Commerce:
    o If a vessel should collide with another through the fault, negligence, or lack of skill of the
    captain, sailing mate, or any other member of the complement, the owner of the vessel at fault
    shall indemnify the losses and damages suffered, after an expert appraisal.
    defendant now cites and relies upon article 827:
    o If both vessels may be blamed for the collision, each one shall be liable for his own damages,
    and both shall be jointly responsible for the losses and damages suffered by their cargoes.
    The testimony is conclusive that the negligence of the Y. Sontua was the primary cause of the
    collision. That if it had remained true to its course, it never would have happened.
    It is equally true that even after the Y. Sontua changed its coarse, if the Mercedes had remained true
    to its course, there would not have been any collision.
    It is vigorously contended that, through the actions and false maneuver of the Y. Sontua, an
    emergency was thrust upon the Mercedes, and that what it did was done under an emergency, and
    hence it was not negligent.

    Issue: WON Mercedes acted under an emergency and thus, there is no contributory negligence on plaintiffs
    part.
    Held: There was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff (Sarasola) owner of the Mercedes. The
    judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, and the complaint dismissed, neither party to recover costs in this
    or the lower court.
    Ratio:

    One vessel going out of the bay and the other coming in ; each on its own course, which if both had
    followed there would have been a full clearance and no collision.
    That the officers on the one vessel at a distance of two or three miles could clearly see the course and
    maneuvers of the other vessel.
    The Y. Sontua changed its course which was the primary cause of the collision. Even so, if the
    Mercedes had remained true to its course, there would have been a full clearance.
    If the collision had taken place after dark, there would be much force in plaintiff's contention that the
    Mercedes acted on an emergency, and that it ought not to be responsible for an error of judgment.
    But it appears from the physical facts that by the aid of natural light, at the time of and prior to the
    collision, either vessel could be clearly and distinctly seen for a considerable distance.
    Hence, we have a right to assume that without the aid of artificial light, the officers of the Y. Sontua
    saw the Mercedes and the course of the vessel.
    That the officers of the Mercedes saw the Y. Sontua and its course and the maneuver which it made.
    Under such a state of facts, the Mercedes either knew or should have known that, if it had remained
    true to its course, there would not have been any collision.
    It follows from what has been said that the negligence of the Y. Sontua was the primary cause of the
    accident, and that the Mercedes was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to maintain its course,
    and that the case comes under the provisions of article 827.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy