Jones v. Port Authority of Allegheny County
583 A.2d 512, 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 654, 136 Pa. Commw. 445 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier owes the highest duty of care to its passengers, and a trial court commits reversible error if its jury instruction fails to explicitly state this heightened standard, even if it attempts to convey a generally higher standard of care.
Facts:
- Oscar Jones boarded a bus operated by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT).
- While Jones was climbing the internal stairs to the seating platform, the bus driver began to pull away from the stop.
- The bus then stopped suddenly, causing Jones to be injured.
- Jones testified that the bus doors had not yet been closed at the time of the incident.
- PAT has an internal safety rule that requires drivers to close all doors before moving the vehicle.
- PAT disputed Jones's account, arguing at trial that the accident never occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Oscar and Mary Jones sued the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court).
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, PAT.
- The Joneses filed post-trial motions requesting a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of PAT.
- The Joneses (appellants) appealed the trial court's order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
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 trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury that a common carrier owes the 'highest duty of care' to its passengers, and instead providing a more general instruction on a heightened standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Barry, Senior Judge.
Yes. A trial court's jury charge is deficient if it does not adequately explain the principle that a common carrier owes the highest duty of care to its passengers. The law is well-settled that common carriers are held to this heightened standard, described specifically as the 'highest degree of care.' While the trial court attempted to explain this concept using phrases like a 'different' degree of care, its failure to use the established legal terminology was insufficient and constituted a reversible error. Furthermore, the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of the carrier's own safety rule (closing the doors before moving) could be considered evidence of negligence, and by improperly removing the question of proximate cause from the jury's consideration.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict liability standard applied to common carriers in Pennsylvania and underscores the critical importance of precise jury instructions. The court makes it clear that general language about a 'heightened' or 'different' standard is not a legally sufficient substitute for the specific 'highest duty of care' instruction. This decision provides a clear guideline for trial courts and serves as a strong precedent for plaintiffs in negligence cases against common carriers, affirming that a deviation from established jury instruction language can be grounds for a new trial. It also solidifies the principle that a defendant's internal safety rules can be introduced as evidence of the appropriate standard of care.
Unlock the full brief for Jones v. Port Authority of Allegheny County