Bethel vs. New York City Transit Authority , 703 N.E. 2d 1214 (1988)

FACTS OF THE CASE

Bethel ( Plaintiff ) was injured while riding a New York City Transit Authority ( Defendant ) bus and prevailed on his negligence suit against Defendant , when his seat( wheelchair-accessible chair) collapsed under him . A wheelchair bound passenger entered the bus at the rear door by means of the disabled person’s platform lift , the seat could be folded up and against the sidewall of the bus by means of a lever under it , thereby creating a space for the wheelchair and passengers to be strapped in against the wall . 

According to the plaintiff , this seat collapsed immediately upon his sitting down and he fell to the floor of the bus , severely injuring his back . After the accident , a Transit Authority inspection revealed that the position of the seat was at a slightly elevated angle and the seat could not be restored to its normal , completely horizontal position . In the inspector’s attempt to adjust the seat , a hinge broke and the seat collapsed .

The Judge instructed the jury that common carriers , such as Defendant , have a duty to use the highest degree of care that human prudence and foresight can suggest in maintaining its vehicles and equipment . 

The trial court instructed the jury to apply his heightened standard of care in deciding whether the Transit Authority and constructive notice of the seat defect that would have led to inspection and repair of the seat . The jury found for Bethel and the New York Supreme Court , Appellate Division affirmed.

ISSUES

Is a common carrier held to a higher standard of care than ordinary tortfeasors.

 Plaintiff was unable to produce any evidence that the Transit  Authority actually knew that the seat was subject to collapse .

ARGUMENTS  

A common carrier is held to the same duty of case as any ordinary tortfeasor . The single standard is to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances of a particular case . The duty of extraordinary care for common carriers is no longer viable . 

The jury found for Plaintiff and Defendant appealed , arguing that a common carrier’s duty of extraordinary care was at odds with the concept of negligence in torts . Defendant appealed and argued that it was held to too high of a standard of care .

At Trial , Bethel argued that the Transit Authority had constructive notice of the seat defect , and that an inspection would have revealed the defect and led to its repair . The trial court instructed the jury that the Transit Authority had a duty to exercise the highest standard of care to ensure passenger safely . 

In this case , the jury was instructed under the extraordinary care standard , so the case must be reversed. Reversed and remained . 

JUDGEMENT

In Union Traction Co. vs. Berry , 121 N.E. 655, 188 Ind.514 (1919) , the Indian Supreme Court reversed a Judgement in which the jury was charged on the defendant carrier’s duty of the highest care .  Therefore, the court reasoned it is not practicable for the court to fix and declare as a matter of law the quantum of care that should be exercised under the conditions and circumstances peculiar to any special case , that duty rests with the jury to be performed under proper instructions from the court . 

In McLean vs. Triboro Coach Corp. , this court also noted that the Kelley vs. Manhattan Ry. Co. rule cannot be squared with the customary negligence standard of care of the reasonably prudent person under the circumstances of the particular case .

Accordingly , the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed , with costs , and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial .

REFERENCE

https://casebriefs.com

https://casetext.com

This Article is written by Anshika Aggrawal of Shri Varshney College , Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Admin