Short answer. Sometimes. Article 1763 makes the carrier responsible for injuries caused by other passengers or strangers only where its employees, using the diligence of a good father of a family, could have prevented or stopped what happened. The test is what the crew could reasonably have done.

What the law says

A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.

Civil Code, Article 1763 — Acts of Co-Passengers or Strangers. Read the full provision →

What the law says

The passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself.

Civil Code, Article 1761 — Passenger's Own Diligence. Read the full provision →

A lower standard than the rest of the chapter

Everywhere else a carrier owes extraordinary diligence. Here it does not. The article makes the carrier responsible for harm done by co-passengers or strangers if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission. Ordinary prudence is the measure, and the reason is straightforward: the carrier did not cause the injury and does not control the person who did. What it is answerable for is its own crew's failure to act.

What the crew could have prevented

The question is always practical and specific. Was there warning — a quarrel building over several minutes, a visibly drunk or armed passenger allowed to board, repeated complaints ignored? Did the conductor or crew see it and do nothing, or was there simply nothing to see until it happened? A sudden assault by a stranger with no prior sign gives the crew no opportunity and no liability. A fight that escalated in front of an inattentive conductor is a different case entirely.

The burden here is not the usual one

Because liability turns on what the employees could have done, the passenger's account of the incident carries more weight in this claim than in an ordinary accident case. You are not simply proving that you were a passenger and were hurt; you are showing the sequence that gave the crew their chance to intervene. Independent witnesses, CCTV where the vehicle or terminal has it, and any complaint made to staff before the injury are worth far more than a description of the injury itself.

Your own conduct counts too

Article 1761 requires that the passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself, and a passenger who joined the altercation or provoked it will find that raised. It reduces rather than defeats a claim where the carrier's own negligence remains the proximate cause. Report the incident to the crew and to the operator in writing on the day, ask that any recording be preserved, and take the names of the passengers who saw it before everyone gets off.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.