Fast v. Coastal Journeys Unlimited, Inc., 6:16-cv-00060

Plaintiff Eileen Fast, a Florida resident, joined a private, ten-day Oregon coast bus tour led by Coastal Journeys (Carol and Roger Unser) and booked through Elderhostel/ Road Scholar; tour had ~40 mostly elderly participants.
On Sept. 21, 2015, the tour bus arrived at Gold Beach Resort; Carol Unser released participants by name, gave room keys, and instructed them to exit the bus.
After exiting without incident, Fast walked through a dense group of tour participants milling in the resort parking lot while luggage was being unloaded.
Fast tripped on a concrete parking block in the resort parking lot and suffered serious shoulder injuries.
Fast sued Tour Defendants for negligence seeking damages of $884,447.75; Tour Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead a legal duty or breach.
The court granted the motion, finding Fast failed to plausibly allege that Tour Defendants owed a duty to warn of the parking block, to prevent crowding, or otherwise breached a duty even if they were common carriers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tour Defendants are common carriers and owed heightened duty when passengers alight	Fast contends tour operators were common carriers and thus owed highest care to allow safe alighting and provide assistance	Defendants dispute duty beyond ordinary care; even if common carriers, they permitted safe alighting and did not create unsafe conditions	Court: Need not decide common-carrier status; even assuming it, complaint shows Fast alighted safely and alleges no breach of ‘‘safe place to alight’’ duty, so claim fails
Whether defendants had a duty to warn of parking blocks or concealed hazards	Fast argues defendants knew of the parking block and had a duty to warn customers of known danger or not conceal it	Defendants argue Fast alleged no facts showing they knew of or concealed the parking block, and the lot was not controlled by them	Court: Dismissed — complaint lacks plausible allegation of defendants’ knowledge or control and therefore no duty to warn was pled
Whether defendants had a duty to prevent or control crowding that led to the injury	Fast contends defendants controlled exit timing/sequence and thus created/controlled the dangerous condition outside the bus	Defendants say mere order of dismissal and passengers milling does not create a legal duty to control other adults’ conduct	Court: No plausible allegation that defendants created a hazardous condition or exerted control to impose such a duty; claim fails

Brant v. Tri-Met, 230 Or. App. 97, 213 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (common carriers owe passengers highest degree of care)
Deason v. Tri-Met, 241 Or. App. 510, 251 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (common-carrier duties include assistance and facilitating safe alighting)
Lewis v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 147 Or. 588 (Or. 1933) (common carriers must furnish a safe place in which to alight)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading requires more than mere possibility of misconduct)