Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc.
271 P.3d 1104, 229 Ariz. 117, 2012 Ariz. LEXIS 123 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of care for a common carrier in a negligence action is that of reasonable care under the circumstances, not the historically applied standard of the highest degree of care practicable.
Facts:
- Linda Brown, a passenger who used a wheelchair, boarded a city bus operated by SunTran.
- The bus driver, Grace Zoellner, secured Brown's wheelchair to the floor of the bus.
- After the bus resumed its route, a car in front of it stopped abruptly.
- Zoellner braked sharply to avoid a collision.
- The sudden braking action threw Brown from her wheelchair, causing her to sustain serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Brown sued SunTran and its driver, Grace Zoellner, for negligence in the Arizona Superior Court (trial court).
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that SunTran owed the 'highest degree of care practicable,' rejecting SunTran's request for a 'reasonable care' instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Brown, finding Zoellner 70% at fault.
- SunTran (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that existing case law required the 'highest degree of care' instruction.
- SunTran (petitioner) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
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 to exercise the highest degree of care practicable, or does it owe the general duty of reasonable care under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurwitz, Vice Chief Justice.
No, a common carrier owes its passengers the general duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. The historical rule requiring the 'highest degree of care' is an outdated standard that creates confusion and is no longer necessary. The general negligence standard of 'reasonable care under all the circumstances' is sufficiently flexible to account for the special relationship between a carrier and its passengers, as juries can consider the context of public transport when determining what actions are reasonable. The court reasoned that the original justification for the heightened standard—the ultrahazardous nature of early public transportation—is no longer applicable. Furthermore, the 'highest degree of care' instruction is practically and intellectually elusive, potentially misleading juries into holding carriers to a standard of strict liability, akin to being insurers of passenger safety, which they are not.
Analysis:
This decision formally abandons an archaic, special duty of care for common carriers in Arizona and aligns this area of tort law with the general negligence standard. By replacing the confusing 'highest degree of care' instruction with the unitary 'reasonable care under the circumstances' standard, the court simplifies legal analysis and jury instructions. The ruling clarifies that while a common carrier's responsibilities are significant, its conduct should be evaluated within the same flexible framework as any other potential tortfeasor. This may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in negligence actions against common carriers, as they can no longer rely on a jury instruction that suggests a standard bordering on strict liability.
Unlock the full brief for Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc.