Tan vs Northwest Airlines digest

TAN VS NORTHWEST AIRLINES

On May 31, 1994, Pris Priscill cilla a Tan and Conn Connie ie Tan boar boarded ded Nort Northwes hwestt Airl Airlines ines in Chic Chicago, ago, US bond !or the Phili""ines, with a sto"#o$er at %etroit& They arri$ed at the NA'A on (ne 1, 1994 at abot 1)*4) in the e$ening& FACTS-

U"on their arri$al, "etitioner and her co+"anion Connie !ond that their baggages were +issing&  They retrned to the air"ort in the e$ening o! the !ollowing day and they were in!or+ed that their baggages +ight still be in another "lane in Toyo, (a"an& On (ne 3, 1994, they reco$ered their baggages and disco$ered that so+e o! its contents were destroyed and soiled& Clai+ing that they -s!!ered Clai+ing -s!!ered +ent +ental al ang angish, ish, slee"less slee"less nights and great da+a da+agege- beca becase se o! Northwest.s !ailre !ailre to in!or+ the+ in ad$ance that their baggages baggages wold not be loaded on the sa+e !light they boarded and becase o! their delayed arri$al, they de+anded !ro+ Northwest Airlines co+"ensation !or the da+ages they s!!ered& Petitioner sent de+and letters to Northwest Airlines, bt the latter did not res"ond hence the !iling o! the case with the /TC& 'n its answer to the co+"laint, res"ondent Northwest Airlines did not deny that the baggages o! "etitioners were not loaded& Petitioner.s baggages cold not be carried on the sa+e !light becase o! -weight and balance restrictions&- 0owe$er, the baggages were loaded in another Northwest Airlines !light& hen "etitioner "etitioner recei$ed recei$ed her baggages baggages in da+a da+aged ged cond condition ition,, Nort Northwes hwestt o!!er o!!ered ed to eith either er 21 rei+brse the cost or re"air o! the bags or 25 rei+brse the cost !or the "rchase o! new bags, "on sb+ission o! recei"ts& /TC !ond Northwest Airlines liable !or da+ages& Northwest Airlines a""ealed contending that the /TC erred in !inding it gilty o! breach o! contract o! carriage and o! will!l +iscondct and awarded da+ages which had no basis in !act or were otherwise e6cessi$e& ISSUE#

7N res" res"onden ondentt is liab liable le !or +ora +orall and e6e+ e6e+"lar "lary y da+a da+ages ges !or will will!l !l +isc +iscond ondct ct and breach o! the contract o! air carriage& RULING#

Northwest Airlines was not gilty o! will!l +iscondct& -8or will!l +iscondct to e6ist there +st be a showing that the acts co+"lained o! were i+"elled by an intention to $iolate the law, or were in "ersistent disregard disregard o! one.s rights& 't +st be e$idenced by a !lagrantly or sha+e!lly wrong or i+"ro"er condct& %e to weight and balance restrictions, as a sa!ety +easre, res"ondent airline had to trans"ort the baggages on a di!!erent !light, bt with the sa+e e6"ected date and ti+e o! arri$al in the Phili""ines& To ensre the sa!ety o! each !light, Northwest.s "ersonnel deter+ine e$ery !light.s co+"liance with -weight and balance restriction restrictions&s&'t is ad+itted that res"ondent !ailed to deli$er "etitioner.s lggages on ti+e& 0owe$er, there was no showing o! +alice in sch !ailre& :y its concern !or sa!ety, res"ondent had to shi" the baggages in another !light with the sa+e date o! arri$al& -:ad !aith does not si+"ly connote bad ;dg+ent or negligence, it i+"orts a dishonest "r"ose or so+e +oral obli