Short answer. No. Once you show you were a passenger and were injured, Article 1756 presumes the carrier was at fault. It must then prove it observed extraordinary diligence. You are proving a contract of carriage and an injury, not reconstructing how the driver or master went wrong.

What the law says

In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

Civil Code, Article 1756 — Presumption of Negligence (Passengers). Read the full provision →

What the law says

The contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced.

Civil Code, Article 1762 — Passenger's Contributory Negligence. Read the full provision →

The presumption, and what triggers it

Article 1756 provides that in case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755. Two facts set it running: that you were being carried, and that you were hurt. You do not have to establish the speed of the bus, the state of the brakes or what the driver did in the seconds before impact. That evidence exists inside the company, which is precisely why the law does not ask the passenger to produce it.

Suing the operator, not the driver

A claim on this article rests on the contract of carriage, so it is brought against the operator. That distinction has a practical edge: the carrier cannot escape by showing it hired carefully and supervised properly. A carrier is answerable for injuries caused by the negligence or even the wilful acts of its employees, and proving diligence in their selection and supervision does not end that liability. So the identity of the driver, and whether he is worth suing, does not decide whether you have a claim.

What the carrier will try to show

Three answers recur. That a fortuitous event was the sole cause; that a stranger or another passenger caused the injury in circumstances its staff could not have prevented; and that you were careless yourself. The last one is limited by Article 1762: the contributory negligence of the passenger does not bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount of damages shall be equitably reduced. Riding on the roof or alighting while moving reduces a claim; it rarely destroys one.

What to secure early

Evidence that you were a passenger is the piece most often lost, because it is a ticket in a pocket. Keep it, or the receipt, the booking record or the fare confirmation, and if none exists, the names of fellow passengers and staff. Then the medical records from the first consultation onward, photographs of the vehicle and the scene, the police or coast guard report, and the operator's name and plate or vessel details. Report the incident to the operator in writing, and get treated and documented immediately, however minor it seems.

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.