Short answer. Yes. Article 1751 says a common carrier's lack of competition on the route is taken into consideration when judging whether a stipulation limiting its liability is reasonable, just, and consistent with public policy. The absence of a competitor is a real factor against the cap's fairness.
What the law says
The fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just and in consonance with public policy.
Civil Code, Article 1751 — No Competition Considered. Read the full provision →
Lack of competition is an express factor, not something you have to argue in from scratch
Article 1751 names the exact circumstance you are describing as legally significant. It states that "the fact that the common carrier has no competitor along the line or route, or a part thereof, to which the contract refers shall be taken into consideration on the question of whether or not a stipulation limiting the common carrier's liability is reasonable, just and in consonance with public policy." You do not need to convince a court that monopoly status matters at all — the statute already says it does.
Why a monopoly changes the fairness analysis
A liability limitation clause is generally easier to justify when a customer had a real choice among competing carriers and freely accepted a lower liability cap in exchange for some benefit, like a lower fare. When a carrier has no competitor on the route, customers have no alternative to turn to, which removes the bargaining dynamic that would otherwise make an agreed limitation genuinely voluntary. This absence of choice is exactly why the article singles out the lack of competition as relevant to reasonableness.
This factor does not automatically void the cap by itself
Article 1751 says the absence of a competitor "shall be taken into consideration," which frames it as one factor feeding into the overall reasonableness analysis, not as an automatic rule that voids every liability limitation imposed by a monopoly carrier. The lack of competition strengthens an argument that a particular cap is unreasonable, unjust, or against public policy, but the ultimate determination still depends on weighing this factor together with the rest of the circumstances surrounding the stipulation.
What this means for challenging the cap you are facing
If you are contesting a liability limitation imposed by a carrier that is the only one serving your route, Article 1751 gives you a direct statutory basis for arguing that the limitation deserves closer scrutiny precisely because of that monopoly position. Pair this factor with any other circumstances suggesting the cap was unreasonably low or was not genuinely something you had a meaningful opportunity to negotiate, since the strength of a challenge typically grows when several such factors point in the same direction.