Zorotovich v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority
1971 Wash. LEXIS 523, 80 Wash. 2d 106, 491 P.2d 1295 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person becomes a passenger to whom a common carrier owes the highest degree of care when they enter an area controlled by the carrier, at a reasonable time before departure, with a genuine intention to take passage, while submitting to the carrier's express or implied directions, and the carrier has notice of their presence and intent.
Facts:
- On July 4, 1967, Paul J. Zorotovich planned to travel on a ferry operated by the Washington Toll Bridge Authority from Kingston to Edmonds.
- Zorotovich walked down the pedestrian walkway at the terminal to a point opposite the ticket booth.
- He asked the ticket seller, an employee of the Authority named Vernon D. Huggart, where to purchase a ticket.
- Huggart directed Zorotovich to cross a vehicle lane and come to the booth to buy the ticket.
- Zorotovich crossed to a designated safe area near the toll booth.
- As he stepped from the safe area toward the ticket window as instructed, a camping trailer being pulled by a station wagon struck him.
- The trailer pinned Zorotovich between itself and the ticket booth, causing him injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul J. Zorotovich sued the Washington Toll Bridge Authority and Boyd Simmons and his wife in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.
- The trial court granted Zorotovich's motion for a new trial.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the order granting a new trial to the Washington Court of Appeals, and Zorotovich (cross-appellant) cross-appealed on the issue of the standard of care.
- The Court of Appeals reinstated the jury verdict, reversing the trial court's order for a new trial.
- Zorotovich then petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision on his cross-appeal.
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 the highest degree of care to a person who is on the carrier's premises with the intent to purchase a ticket and board, and is following the directions of the carrier's employee, but has not yet purchased a ticket or begun to board the conveyance?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
Yes. A person achieves passenger status, and is thus owed the highest degree of care, when they meet a five-part test establishing the passenger-carrier relationship. The court found that Zorotovich met all five elements: (1) Place: He was in an area under the sole control of the carrier and intended for passenger use. (2) Time: The injury occurred only a few minutes before the ferry's departure. (3) Intention: He demonstrated a clear intention to take passage on the ferry. (4) Control: He was submitting to the express directions of the carrier's agent, the ticket seller. (5) Knowledge: The carrier's agent saw him, knew of his intent, and directed his actions. Because Zorotovich met all these tests, he was a passenger at the time of his injury and was entitled to the highest degree of care from the Washington Toll Bridge Authority.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the inception of the carrier-passenger relationship, extending the carrier's duty of highest care to the period before a ticket is purchased or boarding has commenced. By establishing a flexible five-factor test, the court moved beyond a rigid rule requiring a purchased ticket or physical boarding. This precedent significantly impacts premises liability for common carriers, making them potentially liable for injuries in terminals, waiting areas, and docks where they exercise control and direct the actions of prospective passengers.
