Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals · 1998 · Torts

Tortsnegligencecommon carrierhighest degree of carereasonable carecommon carrierreasonable careordinary negligence

Facts

Plaintiff boarded a New York City Transit Authority bus and sat in a fold-up seat near the rear door that could be raised to make space for a wheelchair passenger. According to plaintiff, the seat collapsed immediately when he sat down, causing him to fall and severely injure his back. A post-accident inspection showed the seat was slightly elevated, could not be restored to a fully horizontal position, and collapsed when an inspector tried to adjust it and a hinge broke. Plaintiff offered no proof of actual notice, but relied on constructive notice through repair records showing that 11 days earlier repairs were made to a "Lift Wheelchair," which he argued referred to the seat area and should have revealed the defect.

Issue

Whether New York should continue to apply a special common-carrier duty of highest or extraordinary care as a matter of law, and whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury under that heightened standard in this case. More specifically, the question was whether common carriers should instead be judged by the ordinary negligence standard of reasonable care under all of the circumstances.

Rule

A common carrier is subject to the same duty of care as any other potential tortfeasor: reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case. New York no longer recognizes a separate legal standard requiring common carriers to exercise the highest or extraordinary degree of care, because negligence law does not stratify degrees of care as a matter of law and the reasonable-person standard is sufficiently flexible to account for danger and dependency in the particular circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a commuter ferry in Seattle, Nora Kim was injured when a handrail near the passenger cabin gave way during normal use. At trial, the judge told the jury that because the ferry operator was a common carrier, it owed passengers the highest degree of care in maintaining onboard equipment.

If the operator appeals solely on the ground that the jury was instructed under the wrong duty standard, how should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that common carriers are subject to the ordinary negligence standard of reasonable care under all of the circumstances, not a separate legal duty of extraordinary or highest care. The majority rejected stratified degrees of care as a matter of law. An instruction imposing a highest-degree-of-care standard is erroneous and, when tied to the liability issue, warrants a new trial rather than dismissal.