Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority
92 N.Y.2d 348, 703 N.E.2d 1214, 681 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
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—and is no longer held to the heightened standard of "the utmost care so far as human skill and foresight can go."
Facts:
- On June 19, 1989, plaintiff Bethel boarded a bus operated by the New York City Transit Authority.
- Bethel proceeded to a seat designated as 'wheelchair accessible,' which was designed to fold up against the bus wall to create space for a wheelchair.
- The seat collapsed immediately upon Bethel sitting down, causing him to fall to the floor and severely injure his back.
- The Transit Authority's maintenance records for the bus showed that 11 days before the incident, repairs described as 'adjustment and alignment' were made to a 'Lift Wheelchair'.
- Bethel was unable to produce evidence that the Transit Authority had actual knowledge that the seat was defective prior to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Bethel sued the New York City Transit Authority in the New York Supreme Court (the trial court).
- The trial court instructed the jury that, as a common carrier, the Transit Authority had a duty to use the 'highest degree of care'.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Bethel, finding the Transit Authority had constructive notice of the defect.
- The Transit Authority (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Transit Authority (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest 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:
Does a common carrier owe its passengers a duty of the highest degree of care, or should it be held to the general negligence standard of reasonable care under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
No. 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. The court overturned the long-standing rule that common carriers owe a duty of the highest care, finding it an anachronism from the 19th century when public transportation was inherently more dangerous. The court reasoned that the single, objective standard of a 'reasonable person of ordinary prudence' is flexible enough to account for the circumstances of each case, including the heightened risks associated with public transport and the passenger's dependency on the carrier. This approach aligns with modern tort jurisprudence, which has moved away from status-based duties of care, as seen in Basso v. Miller. The old rule created anomalous results and was inconsistent with the fundamental theory of negligence. Because the trial court instructed the jury on the incorrect, heightened standard of care, the error was not harmless and a new trial is required.
Analysis:
This decision officially abandons a century-old, status-based duty of care specific to common carriers in New York, replacing it with the universal standard of reasonable care. It continues the modern jurisprudential trend of simplifying tort law by eliminating specialized duties for certain classes of defendants, promoting a single, flexible standard for negligence. By overruling prior precedent, the court ensures that liability for carriers is determined by the same principles as other potential tortfeasors, allowing juries to determine what is 'reasonable' based on the specific facts, including the inherent risks of public transit. This change provides greater consistency in negligence law and may prevent juries from being skewed by instructions imposing a nearly impossible standard of care on carriers.
