Deason v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
251 P.3d 779
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff was a passenger on a TriMet bus in downtown Portland and was injured as she stepped off the bus during a snowstorm.
- The bus became disabled due to sliding on ice while turning; the driver stabilized the bus and opened an open-door policy encouraging alighting unless dangerous conditions existed.
- TriMet allowed passengers to deboard when not dangerous; there was debate over whether passengers were instructed to exit in this case.
- The bus was a low-floor model; the floor was kneeled to lower to curb height prior to alighting, with several inches of ice and snow outside.
- Plaintiff walked off holding handrails, slipped on ice, and suffered a serious ankle injury requiring surgery.
- The trial court instructed the jury that a common carrier owes the highest degree of care but generally does not have a duty to assist deboarding absent circumstances showing need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty-to-assist instruction correctly states the standard of care | Deason argues it misstates Oregon law and improperly focuses on duty to assist. | TriMet contends the instruction accurately reflects the rule that assistance is required only where circumstances show need. | Yes; instruction correctly states the duty-to-assist rule. |
| Whether the court should have defined the 'circumstances' requiring assistance | The court should define circumstances that trigger assistance. | No obligation to enumerate; jurors may consider any pertinent circumstances. | No; court did not err in leaving circumstances broad and undefined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brant v. Tri-Met, 230 Or.App. 97, 213 P.3d 869 (2009) (common carrier owes highest degree of care and skill; duty depends on surrounding circumstances)
- Simpson v. The Gray Line Co., 226 Or. 71, 358 P.2d 516 (1961) (high standard of care for common carriers)
- Adams v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 87 Or. 602, 171 P. 219 (1918) (general rule: no duty to assist absent apparent necessity)
- Crenshaw v. Doubletree Corp., 81 Ark.App. 157, 98 S.W.3d 836 (2003) (absence of apparent necessity generally negates duty to assist)
- Beaudet v. Boston & M. R. R., 101 N.H. 4, 131 A.2d 65 (1957) (no duty to furnish assistance absent apparent necessity)