Short answer. Only in a limited way, and only if you agreed to it. Article 1748 says an agreement limiting a common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. So a carrier can invoke a strike to excuse late delivery only where a valid stipulation covers it — and only for delay.
What the law says
An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid.
Civil Code, Article 1748 — Limitation for Strikes/Riots Valid. Read the full provision →
What the article actually permits
The article is narrow and precise. It says that an agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid. Three limits are built into that single sentence. First, it is about an agreement — a stipulation the parties made — not an automatic excuse the carrier enjoys by default. Second, it addresses delay, meaning late performance, not the loss of or damage to your goods. Third, it is confined to strikes or riots, not every disruption a carrier might face. So a carrier can point to a strike to soften its responsibility for lateness only where such a clause exists and genuinely covers the situation.
Why common carriers start from a high bar
The reason a special provision is needed is that common carriers are held to an exacting standard. They are bound to observe extraordinary diligence over the goods entrusted to them, and their liability is not lightly reduced. Against that strict baseline, the law will not let a carrier casually disclaim responsibility, and many attempted limitations on a carrier's duty are viewed with suspicion or struck down. Article 1748 is significant precisely because it identifies one narrow limitation the law is willing to uphold: a stipulation trimming liability for delay caused by strikes or riots. It is an exception carved out of an otherwise demanding regime, not the general rule.
Delay is not the same as loss
The confinement to delay matters a great deal to a shipper. A valid clause under this article addresses the consequences of the goods arriving late because of a strike or riot; it does not authorise the carrier to escape liability if the goods are lost, destroyed or damaged. Those are different failures, governed by the carrier's core duty of extraordinary diligence, and a delay clause does not quietly extend to them. So a carrier that invokes a strike to explain not delay but the disappearance or ruin of your shipment is reaching beyond what this article permits.
The limits of the excuse
Even for delay, the article does not hand carriers a blanket shield. It validates an agreement, so without a clause covering strikes or riots there may be nothing to limit the carrier's ordinary responsibility for late delivery. A limitation is also read against the carrier and cannot be stretched to excuse its own negligence, and it does not cover disruptions that are neither strikes nor riots. Whether a particular clause was actually agreed, and whether the delay truly resulted from a strike or riot rather than the carrier's own fault, are fact-specific questions. The article settles that such a stipulation is allowed, not that every excuse dressed up as one will hold.