Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District
40 Cal. 3d 780, 710 P.2d 907, 221 Cal. Rptr. 840 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public common carrier has a duty of utmost care and diligence to protect its passengers from assaults by fellow passengers. This duty arises from the special relationship between a carrier and its passengers, and governmental immunity statutes for failing to provide police protection or for discretionary acts do not shield the carrier from liability for an employee's operational failure to take reasonable precautionary measures.
Facts:
- Carmen Lopez and other plaintiffs were fare-paying passengers on a bus operated by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD), a public corporation.
- A group of juveniles on the bus began harassing other passengers, and a violent argument ensued.
- The RTD bus driver was notified of the altercation.
- The driver failed to take any precautionary measures and continued to operate the bus.
- The argument escalated into a violent physical fight, resulting in injuries to the plaintiffs.
- RTD was allegedly aware of a history of violent and assaultive conduct by passengers on this particular bus route, with incidents occurring daily or weekly.
Procedural Posture:
- Carmen Lopez and others sued the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) in a California trial court.
- RTD filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, arguing it had no duty to protect passengers and was immune from liability.
- The trial court sustained RTD's demurrer without leave to amend.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of RTD.
- The plaintiffs appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Supreme 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 public common carrier have a duty to protect its passengers from assault by fellow passengers, and is it immune from liability under California Government Code for its driver's failure to take protective action?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No, the public common carrier is not immune from liability. A public common carrier has a duty to protect passengers from assault and can be held liable for failing to do so. The court holds that Civil Code section 2100 imposes a duty of utmost care on all common carriers, public and private, to protect passengers from assaults by fellow passengers. This duty is rooted in the special relationship between a carrier and its passengers, who are confined in a 'moving steel cocoon' and are dependent on the carrier for safety. The court found that Government Code section 845, which provides immunity for failure to provide police protection, does not apply because the plaintiffs' claim is not based on a failure to deploy police forces but on the on-site driver's failure to take simple, operational measures. Furthermore, Government Code section 820.2, providing immunity for discretionary acts, is also inapplicable because the decision of how to respond to an immediate, known danger is a ministerial, operational action that implements an existing policy, not a basic policy decision itself. The court disapproved a prior case, Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., to the extent it held no special relationship exists between a public carrier and its passengers.
Concurring - Bird, C.J.
Yes, RTD owed a duty of care and is not immune from liability. This opinion adopts the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, agreeing fully with the majority's conclusion. The concurrence emphasizes that because RTD voluntarily entered the business of a common carrier, it assumed the same statutory and common law duties as a private company, including the duty of utmost care for passenger safety under Civil Code section 2100. It highlights the special relationship between carrier and passenger, where passengers are dependent and have limited means of escape. The opinion characterizes the immunity argument under Government Code section 845 as a 'red herring,' reasoning that the RTD's liability arises from its specific duty as a carrier, not a general failure to provide police services. The decisions on how to implement passenger safety are operational, not the high-level policy decisions that immunity statutes are designed to protect.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the intersection of common carrier liability and governmental tort immunity in California. By affirming that public carriers are held to the same 'utmost care' standard as private carriers, the decision prevents public entities from using sovereign immunity to shield themselves from operational negligence. The court's distinction between immune high-level 'policy' decisions (like resource allocation for police) and non-immune 'operational' decisions (like a driver's response to a fight) provides a crucial framework for future litigation against public entities. This precedent strengthens protections for passengers on public transport and limits the scope of governmental immunity in contexts where the government provides services directly to the public.
