Anderson v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
56 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 2002 Mass. App. LEXIS 1470, 779 N.E.2d 651 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury may determine, without the aid of expert testimony, whether a common carrier exercised reasonable care by allowing passengers to stand on a bus traveling at high speed over a long distance, as this is a question within the scope of ordinary life experience and common sense.
Facts:
- Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. operated an oversold charter bus trip on November 16, 1996, from Worcester, Massachusetts, to a casino in Connecticut.
- Because there were not enough seats, passenger Jeanette D. Anderson and three or four others were required to stand in the aisle for the trip.
- While on an interstate highway, the bus traveled at high speed and made erratic movements, including accelerating to change lanes and then braking abruptly.
- As a result of these sudden movements, Anderson fell and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeanette D. Anderson sued Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. for negligence in a Massachusetts District Court.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Anderson for $22,600.
- Peter Pan moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove negligence.
- The trial court judge granted Peter Pan's JNOV motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for the defendant.
- Anderson appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Division of the District Court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court, vacating the judgment for Peter Pan and reinstating the jury's verdict for Anderson.
- Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. then appealed the Appellate Division's decision to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence that a common carrier allowed passengers to stand on a bus traveling at high speed over a long distance sufficient for a jury to find the carrier negligent without expert testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
Yes. Allowing passengers to stand on a bus traveling at high speed over a long distance is sufficient evidence for a jury, applying ordinary life experience and common sense, to find that the bus company was negligent. The court reasoned that unlike complex cases such as professional malpractice or product design which require expert witnesses, the question of whether this practice is unsafe does not. The jury, properly instructed on the principles of negligence, is capable of determining whether the bus line exercised the degree of care a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. The court compared this to other situations where juries are permitted to assess safety based on common sense, such as the condition of a loading ramp or the lighting in a theater.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the role of the jury in applying a common-sense standard of care in negligence cases not involving specialized professional or technical knowledge. By distinguishing this scenario from those requiring expert testimony, the court empowers juries to evaluate the reasonableness of a defendant's conduct based on ordinary life experience. The ruling suggests that common carriers cannot rely on the absence of expert testimony to escape liability for practices that a layperson would intuitively recognize as potentially dangerous. It also notably bypasses older, more restrictive precedents regarding passenger injuries, signaling a more modern approach to carrier liability.
