Transit Bus Stops: Ownership, Liability, and Access (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 8-18
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 8... ...
8 notice of changed conditions that rendered the design dangerous, but failed to remedy the danger.61 Likewise in New York, where the city fails to exercise due care in approving a defective design for a bus shelter, and then fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate the danger once it becomes aware of the dangerous condition, qualified immunity will be overcome.62 The District of Columbia, however, has held that the original decision to locate a bus stop is subject to perpetual design immunity.63 2. Procedural Issues Even where the transit agency is subject to liability, claims may be defeated on procedural grounds, such as failing to file a claim within the statutory timeframe.
|
From page 9... ...
9 primary focus of the analysis of this section is on potential liability to the transit agency. In all instances, liability may vary based on state statutes and case law.
|
From page 10... ...
10 gers' safety.83 Assuming the transit agency has not created a dangerous condition, in order to show breach of duty the plaintiff must establish that the transit agency had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition.84 Municipality. -- The city's decision of where to locate a bus stop may be immune from challenge as a governmental function.85 Nonetheless, a public entity may be liable for dangers created by public property; such dangers may be due to adjoining property when the users of the public property are necessarily exposed to the risks posed by the adjoining property.86 If the municipality is not immune, the duty of care may include a duty to warn of dangerous conditions, such as oncoming traffic.87 The duty to warn of unsafe conditions may vary depending on the status of the party being warned. For example, Texas distinguishes between the duty of ordinary care owed a licensee to either make conditions reasonably safe or warn of a dangerous condition of which the governmental entity is aware and the licensee is not, and the duty owed an invitee to warn of a dangerous condition of which the governmental entity knows or would have known in the exercise of ordinary care, and to reduce or eliminate any unreasonable risk of harm posed by the dangerous condition.88 Franchisees. -- Companies that design, install, operate, and maintain bus shelters may owe a duty to conduct such operations with reasonable care.89 2.
|
From page 11... ...
11 alights from a bus with the intent to transfer to another conveyance may still be considered a passenger, but owed a lesser duty of care.97 The duty of care may increase or decrease due to the special status or condition of the passenger. For example, a higher duty of care is owed to children than to adults.98 Where a transit agency provides transportation to schoolchildren in more than an incidental manner, transit agency buses may become subject to a higher duty of care required for school bus transportation.99 Some states have held that a greater duty is owed to an intoxicated passenger, where the carrier knows or should have known of the passenger's condition.100 A number of jurisdictions have required a greater duty toward disabled individuals if the disability is made known to the carrier or is readily apparent.101 On an accessible bus route, the duty to provide a clear path to disembark includes the duty to provide an unobstructed path to and from the bus stop that is wheelchair accessible.102 B)
|
From page 12... ...
12 opposed to a passenger who has taken several steps away from the bus.111 In Malawer, supra, the bus stopped so that the plaintiff allegedly had to exit onto a slippery subway grating. The court found that it was possible that the plaintiff had not yet safely exited when he fell and thus a question of fact had been raised as to whether the transit agency had breached its duty to afford a safe place to alight, particularly in light of allegations that there were other spots where the driver could have safely stopped the bus.
|
From page 13... ...
13 owed the highest degree of care.124 Other jurisdictions consider as well the passenger's immediate intention to become a passenger. 125 Washington views the duty owed by a transit agency to a would-be passenger crossing the highway from a park-and-ride lot to a bus stop in terms of the duty owed to a customer-invitee to keep premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn customers-invitees of dangerous conditions.
|
From page 14... ...
14 minimum raise a question of fact as to whether future criminal activity is foreseeable, and the past activity need not be the precise type of activity complained of at present.140 Georgia has held that once something occurs to put a common carrier on notice that intentional misconduct by third persons is likely to occur, the carrier is required to take measures to protect its passengers from such conduct.141 An Illinois court held the Chicago Transit Authority liable for an assault that occurred on a rapid transit train where physical conditions conducive to passenger isolation and past patterns of criminal activity on the trains made it reasonably foreseeable that such attacks would occur.142 A Third Circuit court found the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority liable for an assault that occurred on a subway platform, holding that insufficient lighting and inattention by the transit agency employee on the scene supported the finding of negligence.143 Conversely, there is no liability where the criminal activity was "sudden, unexpected, unanticipated, and there was no showing that the carrier either knew, or should have known, about it."144 Furthermore, there may be substantial differences between the duty owed by a transit agency on a conveyance or in a facility owned by the transit agency and the duty owed at a bus stop/shelter, unless the bus stop/shelter is owned, controlled, or maintained by the transit agency.
|
From page 15... ...
15 phia had no duty to erect traffic controls, it had no duty to place a bus stop at a location that contained traffic controls. In addition, the court held a claim of negligent design of the bus stop to be barred by governmental immunity under the Pennsylvania statute.147 California, while continuing to recognize the viability of the discretionary decision exception to statutory immunity, has held that a bus stop location may constitute a dangerous condition of public property.
|
From page 16... ...
16 sion of Southern Nevada.159 In New Mexico, the Transportation Division of the State Department of Education has a statutory responsibility to establish bus routes, which has been held to include the responsibility for establishing bus stops.160 While in many jurisdictions the municipality owns and/or is responsible for establishing bus stops, in some cases such ownership and/or responsibility lies with the transit agency.161 Where a city approves the placement of a bus stop, it may be liable for injury caused by an accident related to that placement.162 Where a transit agency owns and controls the bus stop, even though the county could veto the location of the bus stop, the transit agency may be liable for injuries suffered due to unsafe conditions on property adjacent to the bus stop.163 Jurisdictions split over whether a public entity has a duty to protect passengers from dangers on adjacent land. California, for example, has held that such a duty exists,164 while Washington says it does not.165 Where a bus stop is located at an unsafe location, in addition to the transit agency being liable for placement of the bus stop, the responsible municipality may also be liable for maintaining an unsafe crosswalk.166 The fact that the 159 Committees -- Bus Shelter and Bench Advisory Committee, www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rtc/bsbac.htm.
|
From page 17... ...
17 and fall in order for its liability to be a triable issue of fact.170 A design defect will not necessarily relieve the party responsible for maintenance of liability, but may do so if the maintenance agreement does not impose exclusive or comprehensive duties on the maintenance provider.171 Ordinarily, a governmental entity has a duty to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition.172 In addition, there is a general duty of reasonable care to maintain the sidewalk in front of a bus stop,173 as part of the property owner's "general duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [a] public space in a safe condition."174 A similar duty may attach where the bus stop is on the side of a road.175 The duty to maintain may include the duty to protect against harmful criminal conduct on the public property.176 The duty is predicated on control over the sidewalk.
|
From page 18... ...
18 work is performed. 188 As a point of comparison, in Schlosser, supra, the court held that stocking and cleaning a construction site was not inherently dangerous work.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.