Jing Huang v. Bicycle Casino, Inc.
4 Cal. App. 5th 329
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Bicycle Casino operated a free shuttle from public street pickup points to its casino; passengers used players cards (free) or ID to board and received casino promotions.
- On Oct. 22, 2012, a large crowd (est. 40–70 people) ran ~20–30 meters to a shuttle; in the resulting scramble Jing Huang was pushed while boarding, fell, and suffered a hip fracture requiring surgery.
- Shuttle had no posted stop sign, no regular host or safety personnel on the day, no written boarding procedures, and drivers received no formal training from Bicycle Casino. Crowd rushes and overcapacity occurred frequently.
- Huang sued for negligence, alleging Bicycle Casino was a common carrier and breached a heightened duty; Bicycle moved for summary judgment arguing it was not a common carrier and owed no duty to prevent this harm (and alternatively that causation failed).
- Trial court sustained objections to plaintiff’s expert, held Bicycle Casino was not a common carrier, found no duty to protect against being bumped while boarding, and granted summary judgment. Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bicycle Casino a common carrier for reward? | Shuttle was offered to the public (cards or ID accepted), facilitated casino profit, and was a regular transport service — thus a common carrier owing heightened care. | Shuttle was targeted to a select group, not an established transport business, and primarily served casino promotion, so not a common carrier. | There is a triable issue of fact whether the shuttle was held out to the public and provided reward; summary adjudication on common-carrier status improper. |
| If not a common carrier, did Bicycle owe no duty of ordinary care (categorical no-duty)? | Even under ordinary-care standard, shuttle operators owe ordinary care in choosing where/how to board passengers; the risk of crowding and pushing was generally foreseeable. | The scope of ordinary duty does not extend to preventing being bumped by other passengers; lack of prior injuries makes harm unforeseeable. | Court refused to create a categorical no-duty rule; foreseeability and policy factors support recognizing an ordinary-duty obligation to exercise care in boarding decisions. |
| Was Huang unable as a matter of law to prove causation? | Huang produced facts showing chaotic boarding, prior disorderly incidents, and proximate connection between boarding practices and her injury; causation is for the jury. | Casino asserted plaintiff lacked evidence linking its conduct (no host, stop location, shuttle size) to the specific third-party shove that caused injury. | Causation is a factual question; defendant did not establish lack of causation as a matter of law—genuine issues remain. |
| Were plaintiff’s expert opinions properly excluded so summary judgment was warranted? | Expert supported common-carrier status and identified breaches; exclusion was erroneous but not outcome-determinative because other admissible facts create triable issues. | Expert lacked foundation/expertise for legal opinions and should be excluded. | Court did not rely on the expert; even without it, triable issues existed—no prejudice requiring affirmance of summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2005) (treatment of common carriers and distinction between gratuitous carriers and carriers for reward)
- Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (entities can be common carriers even without transport as primary business)
- Gradus v. Hanson Aviation, Inc., 158 Cal.App.3d 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (factors to assess common-carrier status)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (duty/no-duty framework; foreseeability and public policy considerations)
- Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co., 15 Cal.4th 456 (Cal. 1997) (duty analysis factors and public policy list)
- Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises, 216 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (foreseeability focus in duty analysis)
- Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 22 Cal.3d 508 (Cal. 1978) (proximate cause is typically for the jury)
- Yanez v. Plummer, 221 Cal.App.4th 180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (substantial-factor causation principles)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005) (general rule about duty to protect from third-party conduct)
- Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1985) (rejecting reliance on absence of prior similar incidents for foreseeability)