Boyette v. Trans World Airlines

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyCommon CarrierPremises LiabilityTrespassersProximate Causesummary judgment

Facts

Rutherford flew on a TWE flight, drank heavily, deplaned in St. Louis, and after entering the terminal stole a golf cart and was pursued briefly by a TWE gate agent. He later entered a cleaning room, and with the help of a coworker climbed into a trash chute leading to a trash compactor below, where he fell and was injured. Airport personnel and a police officer then discovered him in the compactor, but before the machine was shut off it activated and killed him. Boyette alleged TWE was negligent in pursuing Rutherford and failing to protect him, and alleged the City was negligent in the compactor setup and in failing to aid him.

Issue

Whether TWE owed Rutherford a continuing or newly assumed duty after he had safely reached the terminal and was pursued after stealing a golf cart, and whether the City owed Rutherford a duty once he was in the trash compactor. More specifically, the court considered whether TWE's conduct could support negligence and whether Rutherford's status on the City's property permitted recovery.

Rule

To maintain negligence, a plaintiff must show duty, breach, and proximate cause. A common carrier owes the highest degree of care only while the carrier-passenger relationship exists and discharges that duty once the passenger reaches a reasonably safe place. A trespasser takes the premises as found, and the landowner is liable only for hidden dangers intentionally placed to injure him or willful or illegal force; although a discovered trespasser in peril is owed ordinary care to avoid injury, Missouri does not treat that duty as including a duty to rescue.

🔒

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.

Nina Flores rode a commuter rail line into Chicago. She stepped off the train and entered the enclosed station concourse without incident. Ten minutes later, while wandering into a closed storage corridor, she tripped over equipment and was injured.

If Nina sues the rail operator alleging it still owed her the heightened duty of a common carrier at the time of her injury, which is the best answer?

Explanation. A common carrier owes the highest degree of care only while the carrier-passenger relationship exists. That duty is discharged once the passenger reaches a reasonably safe place. Under the majority opinion, arrival in the terminal or station concourse is sufficient to end the special common-carrier duty, so Nina cannot rely on that heightened duty for an injury occurring later in a closed storage corridor.