Casto, Brian

bepress Legal Repository

Recent Developments: Todd v. Mass Transit Administration: Common Carriers Have a Duty to Prevent Forseeable Assaults upon Passengers and to Aid Passengers in Danger

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 34Number 1 Summer/Fall 2003 Article 132003Recent Developments: Todd v. Mass TransitAdministration: Common Carriers Have a Duty toPrevent Forseeable Assaults upon Passengers and toAid Passengers in DangerBrian CastoFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationCasto, Brian (2003) "Recent Developments: Todd v. Mass Transit Administration: Common Carriers Have a Duty to PreventForseeable Assaults upon Passengers and to Aid Passengers in Danger," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 34 : No. 1 , Article 13.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol34/iss1/13Recent Developments Toddv. Mass TransitAdministration: Common Carriers Have a Duty to Prevent Forseeable Assaults upon Passengers and to Aid Passengers in Danger The Court of Appeals of Maryland held common carriers have a duty to prevent foreseeable assaults upon pass-engers and to aid passengers in danger. Todd v. Mass Transit Admin., 373 Md. 149, 816 A.2d 930 (2003). The court, in holding a duty to come to the aid of a passenger in danger, gave legal effect to dicta in a case decided ten years prior. Id. at 166, 816 A.2d at 939. Kenneth Todd ("Todd") was a passenger on a Mass Transit Administration ("MTA") bus on the evening of July 4, 2000, when a group of fifteen-to- twenty juveniles boarded the bus. As the juveniles made their way to the rear of the bus where Todd was seated, they harassed other passengers with crass and threatening language. After approximately five minutes, one of the juveniles struck Todd in the head. Todd confronted the juvenile and was attacked by the entire group. During the attack, another passenger alerted the bus driver to the altercatIOn. The bus driver took no action, electing to drive the bus over a bridge before pulling to the side of the road and engaging the panic button to alert police. The juveniles quickly fled the bus after it came to a stop. The attack left Todd with numerous By: Brian Casto bruises, cuts, and abrasions. Todd filed a negligence claim against MTA in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. His claim alleged MTA was negligent in failing to prevent the attack and failing to come to his aid after the driver learned of the attack. The circuit court granted MTA's motion for summary judgment. Todd appealed to the court of special appeals. However, before that court could hear the case the court of appeals granted certiorari. The court first addressed whether the MTAhad a duty to take affirmative steps to prevent the assault. Id at 159, 816A.2d at 935. The court relied on a long-established rule requiring common carriers to protect their passengers from assault when it is known, or should be known, that an assault is imminent and the knowledge of such assault is acquired in time for the carrier to take preventative action. Id. (discussing Tall v. Bait. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A. 1007 (1899». The court stated whether facts in this case established that the two conditions of the rule were met was a question for the jury. Id at 159, 816 A.2d at 936. The court held the requirement of knowledge was satisfied when the carrier knew, or should have known, of the assailants' reckless, violent, and disorderly behavior prior to the attack. Id at 162, 816 A.2d at 937. The court concluded the facts of this case, including the size of the group and its behavior toward other passengers, should have alerted the bus driver of the possibility of an assault. Id The court further held the five minutes from the time the juveniles entered the bus until the assault on Todd was a sufficient length of time in which the bus driver could have taken preventative measures. Id at 163, 816A.2d at 938. The court next considered the question of whether a common carrier owes a duty to aid a pass-enger under attack. Id at 164, 816 A.2d at 939. The court began its analysis by recognizing the general principle that "a person has no legal duty to come to the aid of another in distress." Id (quoting Southland Corp. v. Griffith, 332 Md. 704, 716,633 A.2d 84, 90 (1993». An exception to that rule was created by the Southland court, where a shopkeeper breached his duty of care to a customer when he failed to call the police after learning the customer was under attack. Id. at 164-65, 816 A.2d at 939. In reaching its holding, the Southland court adopted Section 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which states, "an employee 34.1 U. Bait. L.F. 41 Recent Developments of a business has a legal duty to take affirmative action for the aid or protection of a business invitee." Id at 165, 816 A.2d at 939 (citing Southland, 332 Md. at 719, 633 A.2d at 91). Southland also commented, in dicta, that a common carrier has a duty to render aid to a passenger under attack. Id In the instant case, the court noted Section 314 A of the Restate-ment, from which Southland was derived, expressly includes the relationship between common carriers and passengers as one creating a duty to render aid when a passenger is in peril. Id. Therefore, the court concluded it reasonable to extend the "business owner's duty" announced in Southland to common carriers. Id If the carrier had knowledge of the danger and aid could have been provided without placing the carrier's employee in the path of harm, then the carrier had a legal duty to take affirmative action to protect its passengers. Id. at 166, 816A.2d at 939. Whether MTA breached this duty to Todd was a question for a jury. Id. at 169, 816 A.2d at 941. The court concluded a reasonable jury could find the bus driver failed to take action that could have protected Todd. Id. at 168, 816 A.2d at 941. Thus, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor ofMTA was inappropriate. Id. at 169, 816A.2d at 941. Common carriers have a duty to prevent foreseeable assaults upon passengers and to aid pass-engers in danger. Common carriers 34.1 U. Bait L.F. 42 doing business in Maryland must now modify their operating pro-cedures and train their employees on when and how to aid a pass-enger in danger. The holding man-dates that common carriers have a duty to protect passengers provided an employee is not called upon to put himself or herself in the path of danger. This standard will require common carriers to walk a fme line between discouraging their employ-ees from intervening, in the interest of their own welfare, and encour-aging intervention to avoid liability for any harm to passengers in peril. Attorneys advising common carriers doing business in Maryland must assist their clients in drawing this line. JUDGE BASIL A. THOMAS INTERNATIONAL LAW LffiRARY A fund honoring Judge Basil A. Thomas has been created to support an International Law Section in the Univer-sity of Baltimore Law Library. Your contributions to assist in the establishment of this library are most welcome. Please make checks payable to: University of Baltimore Educational Fund Please send to: Judge Basil A. Thomas Law Library University of Baltimore Educational Foundation 1130 N. Charles St. Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-837-6148 Gifts to the Judge Basil A. Thomas Law Library are tax deductible as allowed by law. 

English

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2109&amp;context=lf

Recent Developments: Todd v. Mass Transit Administration: Common Carriers Have a Duty to Prevent Forseeable Assaults upon Passengers and to Aid Passengers in Danger

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

University of Baltimore School of Law