Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsCommon carriersDutyGovernmental immunityCivil Code section 2100common carrierspecial relationshipthird-party assaults

Facts

Plaintiffs were fare-paying passengers on an RTD bus when a group of juveniles began harassing other passengers and a violent argument developed. The bus driver was notified of the altercation but allegedly failed to take any precautionary measures and continued operating the bus. The argument escalated into a violent physical fight, injuring plaintiffs. The complaint also alleged that violent and assaultive conduct occurred daily or weekly on this particular route and that RTD was fully aware of that history and resulting risk.

Issue

Does a public common carrier such as RTD owe passengers a duty to protect them from assaults by fellow passengers, and if so, do Government Code sections 845 and 820.2 immunize RTD from liability under the facts alleged in the complaint? Also, did the complaint fail for lack of particularity?

Rule

Civil Code section 2100 imposes on all common carriers, public or private, a duty of utmost care and diligence to protect passengers from assaults by fellow passengers. A carrier is liable for such injuries only when, in the exercise of the required degree of care, it has or should have knowledge of conditions from which an assault may reasonably be apprehended and has the ability, exercising that degree of care, to prevent the injury. Government Code section 845 does not apply where the complaint alleges failure by an on-scene bus driver to take precautionary measures rather than failure to provide police protection, and Government Code section 820.2 does not immunize such operational conduct at the demurrer stage.

🔒

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 city bus in Oakland operated by Bay Crest Transit Authority, driver Nina Flores hears two passengers exchanging threats and sees one shove the other near the rear exit. Another rider tells Nina that a fight is about to start, but she keeps driving without warning anyone, stopping, or calling dispatch. Minutes later, one passenger severely injures the other.

If the injured passenger sues the public transit authority, which is the strongest argument against dismissal at the pleading stage?

Explanation. The majority held that Civil Code section 2100 applies to public as well as private common carriers and imposes a duty of utmost care and diligence to protect passengers from assaults by fellow passengers. But carriers are not insurers; liability arises only when the carrier has or should have knowledge of conditions making an assault reasonably apprehensible and has the ability to prevent the injury through precautionary measures. Here, the driver had on-scene notice of escalating violence and allegedly did nothing, so dismissal would be improper.