Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
42 TCRP LRD 58 is denied permission to travel with the firearm, or is arrested for traveling with one, âCongress did not intend to create federal rights in Section 926A [that are] actionable under Section 1983.â600 There is âno evidence either in the text or structure of Section 926A that would indicate that Congress intended that police of- ficers tasked with enforcing state gun laws should be liable for damages when they fail to correctly apply Section 926A.â601 The court held that the officers involved in the three cases in Torraco were not subject to liability under § 1983 for false arrest. Even if the officers in two of the cases were aware of 18 U.S.C. § 926A, they had probable cause to believe that the individuals were violating N.Y. Penal Law Section 265.01(1).602 The officers also had probable cause to believe that the appellants did not satisfy the terms of § 926A.603 PART VI â Liability of a Public Transportation Authority as a Common Carrier for Negligent Policing XVI. WHETHER A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AS A COMMON CARRIER IS SUBJECT TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE IN ITS POLICING As a common carrier, a public transportation authority is subject to a higher standard of care, an issue that becomes important, for example, when a transportation authority alleg- edly was negligent in protecting a member of the public from a wrongful act, such as a criminal assault. In 2020, in VIA Metro. Transit v. Meck,604 the plaintiff Meck was injured when a bus operated by VIA made an abrupt stop. The Supreme Court of Texas held that â[b]ecause VIAâs primary function is the business of providing transportation to the gen- eral public for a fee, ⦠VIA is a common carrier that owes its passengers the duty to exercise a high degree of care, regardless of whether it is a governmental entity that provides that service as a governmental function.â605 In Lieberman v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,606 the plaintiff sued the Port Authority for injuries that she sustained when she was knocked down by a homeless man, who stole her purse, as she walked out of a bakery in the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. New Jerseyâs appellate division dismissed the complaint on the basis that the plaintiff was attempting to hold the Port Authority liable for activities that stemmed directly from the Port Authorityâs failure to allocate police resources.607 600 Id. at 139 (emphasis supplied). 601 Id. at 137 (citation omitted). 602 Id. at 139-140. 603 Id. at 140. 604 620 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. 2020). 605 Id. at 365. The court also held that the stateâs âTort Claims Act waives governmental immunity for the negligence of common carriers under the high-degree-of-care duty when that duty applies to them.â Id. at 370. 606 132 N.J. 76, 78, 622 A.2d 1295, 1296 (N.J. 1993). 607 Id., 132 N.J. at 79, 622 A.2d at 1296. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, thereby rein- stating the complaint. First, the court held that, although the Port Authority serves a governmental function, it is not im- mune from suit.608 Second, the court rejected the plaintiff âs argu ment that the Port Authority, as the owner of the Terminal, is a common carrier that has âan enhanced duty of care to its customers.â609 â[N]ot only is there no case law establishing the Port Authority as a common carrier, the statutory definition of âcommon carrierâ would preclude such a designation.â610 Thus, the Port Authority was not subject to the high standard of care that a common carrier would have for an assault occurring in the Terminal.611 Third, the court held that the plaintiff could not hold the Port Authority liable allegedly for failing to provide adequate police protection. However, the court reversed the appellate divisionâs decision, because the Port Authority, which acts as a landlord by renting space to shops, businesses, and restaurants, does much more than operate a bus depot at the Terminal.612 The Port Authorityâs engagement in non-governmental activities meant that it could be held liable for breaching its âduties of due careâeven when those breaches involve injury to a party by a third personâas long as that injury is reasonably foreseeable.â613 The Port Authorityâs dual role, as a governmental entity facilitat ing commuter travel and as a private enterprise renting space to various businesses, required a âfact-sensitive inquiryâ to determine the Port Authorityâs role at the time of the injury. The plaintiff âs complaint could be read to allege that the Port Authority failed to provide reasonably safe premises for its âinvitees.â614 The court reversed the judgment below and re- manded the case to the trial court to determine whether the Port Authority in its responsibility as the landlord of the Terminal had a âduty to provide better lighting, signs, security cameras, and other measures to increase commuter safety.â615 In Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.,616 the question was whether the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD), a public corporation, has a duty to protect passengers aboard its buses from assaults by fellow passengers. The plain- tiffs were injured when there was a fight among passengers on an RTD bus. Although the bus driver was notified of the fight, the driver continued to operate the bus. The plaintiffs alleged that the RTD was aware of a history of violence on the bus route. The RTD argued that it was immune from liability under sev- eral sections of the California Government Code.617 However, the Supreme Court of California held that the RTD owed a duty to passengers and was not immune to a claim as described in 608 Id., 132 N.J. at 82, 622 A.2d at 1298. 609 Id., 132 N.J. at 85, 622 A.2d at 1299. 610 Id., 132 N.J. at 85, 622 A.2d at 1300. 611 Id., 132 N.J. at 86, 622 A.2d at 1300. 612 Id., 132 N.J. at 90, 622 A.2d at 1302. 613 Id. 614 Id., 132 N.J. at 93, 622 A.2d at 1304. 615 Id. 616 40 Cal.3d 780, 783, 710 P.2d 907, 908 (Cal. 1985). 617 Cal. Govât Code §§ 815.2, subdiv. (b), 820.2, and 845.