Short answer. No. Article 1760 of the Civil Code states that a common carrier's responsibility cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise. A sign disclaiming liability for a driver's negligence has no legal effect on that responsibility, however clearly and prominently it is posted.
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 sign is exactly what this article targets
Article 1760 says the carrier's responsibility cannot be eliminated or limited by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on the tickets or otherwise. "Posting of notices" describes precisely the kind of sign in the question — a printed disclaimer displayed inside a vehicle or terminal telling passengers the company will not answer for its driver's negligence. The article names that exact method and rejects it outright, regardless of how conspicuously the notice is displayed or whether a passenger actually reads it.
The list is broad on purpose
Article 1760 does not stop at notices. It also blocks a written stipulation in a contract and a printed statement on the ticket itself, then closes with or otherwise — a catch-all meant to cover other methods a carrier might try, not just the three it names specifically. So switching from a wall sign to a clause buried in the ticket, or any other device meant to achieve the same disclaiming effect, does not get around the article either.
What underlies the rule
The article refers to "the common carrier's responsibility prescribed in the preceding article" as the thing that cannot be limited. That responsibility is set out elsewhere; Article 1760's own job is narrower and specific — it protects that underlying responsibility from being watered down by the carrier's own notices, statements, or agreements. Whatever the exact scope of that responsibility, Article 1760 guarantees it is not something a sign can take away.
The responsibility the sign is trying to escape
That preceding provision is Article 1759, and it is worth reading, because it is unusually strong. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or wilful acts of their employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers — and that liability does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. The usual employer's defence of careful hiring and supervision is closed off, which is precisely why Article 1760 has to close off the contractual escape route as well.
The same bar appears more than once
Article 1760 is not the only provision of its kind, which is a sign of how deliberate the policy is. Article 1757 states that the responsibility of a common carrier for the safety of passengers cannot be dispensed with or lessened by stipulation, by the posting of notices, by statements on tickets, or otherwise. The wording is nearly identical, and the two provisions together cover the carrier's duty of safety and its liability for employees' acts. One limit is worth keeping straight, though: these articles govern the responsibility of a common carrier to its passengers. Whether the vehicle you were riding in was being operated as a common carrier at the time, rather than privately or as an accommodation, is a threshold fact — and it is the point a carrier is far likelier to contest than the effect of its own sign.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1760 — Cannot Be Limited
- Civil Code, Article 1759 — Liability for Employees' Acts
- Civil Code, Article 1757 — Duty to Passengers Cannot Be Waived