Short answer. No. Article 1757 says the carrier's duty for passenger safety cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by posted notices, or by statements on tickets. The line is void whether or not you read it, and buying the ticket is not agreement to it.
What the law says
cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise
Civil Code, Article 1757 — Duty to Passengers Cannot Be Waived. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise.
Civil Code, Article 1760 — Cannot Be Limited. Read the full provision →
The statute names the exact devices carriers use
Article 1757 was written with these notices in view. The carrier's responsibility for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise. Each phrase closes a door: the sign at the terminal, the small print on the stub, the clause in a charter, and then or otherwise to catch whatever else is tried. Note the two verbs. A notice cannot remove the duty and cannot water it down, so a term reducing the standard to ordinary care fails as surely as a flat disclaimer.
Why your consent makes no difference
The usual answer to a printed term is that the passenger accepted it by buying the ticket. That argument has no work to do here. The duty of extraordinary diligence is imposed for reasons of public policy rather than agreed between the parties, so it is not the passenger's to give away. Whether you read the back of the ticket, whether the notice was large or legible, and whether you had any choice of operator are all beside the point. The stipulation is void in itself.
The same rule for injuries caused by staff
Carriers sometimes narrow the disclaimer to acts of their crew, on the theory that an employee who assaults or ignores a passenger has stepped outside the company's responsibility. Article 1760 forecloses that too: the carrier's responsibility for injuries caused by the negligence or wilful acts of its employees cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. It applies even where the employee acted beyond his authority or against orders, which is what makes it worth anything to a passenger.
What the notice does not affect, and what still matters
Two things survive the void clause. Your own carelessness is still weighed, though contributory negligence reduces damages rather than defeating the claim outright. And baggage kept in your personal custody is governed by different rules from the safety duty, so a notice about unattended belongings is not the same question. Keep the ticket itself despite the printed disclaimer — it is your proof of the contract of carriage, which is the fact the whole claim is built on.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1757 — Duty to Passengers Cannot Be Waived
- Civil Code, Article 1760 — Cannot Be Limited
- Civil Code, Article 1755 — Utmost Diligence for Passengers