Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the duty owed to passengers travelling on the State’s public buses. Maison v. N.J. Transit Corp., 245 A.3d 536 (N.J. 2021). This case involved a twenty-year old female college student who boarded a bus operated by New Jersey Transit. Behind her on the bus were four to five male teenage passengers. Id. at 536. Not long after the bus was underway, the teenagers began verbally harassing the student, eventually throwing objects at her with one even brandishing a knife. Id. The student attempted to change seats, but the teens persisted in their harassment. Id. Before leaving the bus, one of the teens threw a bottle, hitting the student in the face and causing a severe injury to her forehead, which was described as permanent. Id.
One of the main issues analyzed by the Court was the duty of care owed by New Jersey Transit to its passengers. At common law, common carriers have traditionally been held to a higher standard of care than other tortfeasors in the realm of negligence. Maison, 245 A.3d at 536 (citing Schott v. Weiss, 105 A. 192, 193 (N.J. 1918)). The rationale for this was largely that such a carrier assumes the protection of its passengers who are, by virtue of their being passengers, largely restricted in how they may protect themselves. Id. (citing Derwort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 245, 253 (1851). However, in New Jersey it was not entirely clear whether public transit systems would be subject to the heightened standard generally applicable to other such carriers. Id. (citing Lieberman v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 622 A.2d 1295, 1300 (N.J. 1993)).
In Maison, unlike in its previous decisions such as Lieberman, the Court unambiguously addressed this issue, finding that, “the heightened common-carrier standard applies to public carriers like NJ Transit.” Id. The Court’s Opinion found support in caselaw from both the California and Texas Supreme Courts, which similarly hold public transit systems to a heightened standard. See Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 221 Cal. Rptr. 840 (Cal. 1985); VIA Metro. Transit v. Meck, S.W.3d, 2020 Tex. LEXIS 613 (Tex. 2020).
Insofar as practical application of this standard and whether NJ Transit breached it, the Court found that the bus driver was under no obligation to intervene physically and end the behavior of the teenagers. In fact, the Court stated that per its understanding of the applicable regulations, a bus driver is not authorized to take such action. Maison, 245 A.3d at 536 (citing N.J.A.C. 16:83-1.6). However, the Court stated that a bus driver must at a minimum exercise “utmost caution” to satisfy the heightened standard, which on the facts presented would have included addressing the harassers directly, stopping the bus, or calling the police. Unfortunately for the student in Maison, the driver never took any of these actions until after she was struck with the bottle, and the teens who assaulted her were never apprehended by the police.
Hopefully, the Maison decision will deter would-be assailants from harassing passengers and bolster the safety of our public transportation.