Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc.
271 P.3d 1104
Ariz.2012Background
- Linda Brown, wheelchair-bound, boarded a SunTran bus on May 2, 2008 and was restrained by Zoellner.
- A car in front stopped abruptly; Zoellner braked sharply, causing Brown to be ejected from her chair and injured.
- Brown sued SunTran and Zoellner for negligence, alleging driving and seatbelt issues; SunTran claimed Brown’s seatbelt refusal caused injuries and blamed the car driver.
- SunTran sought a jury instruction that common carriers owe the highest degree of care practicable under the circumstances.
- The trial court refused that instruction, giving a standard negligence instruction that requires reasonable care under all circumstances.
- The jury allocated 70% fault to Zoellner and 30% to Brown; the car driver was not found at fault; a memorandum decision of the court of appeals was later vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of care applies to common carriers? | Brown argues for the highest degree of care practicable under the circumstances. | SunTran argues for the general reasonable-care standard. | Reasonable care under all the circumstances applies. |
| Is abandonment of the common carrier doctrine permissible under the Arizona Constitution? | Brown contends anti-abrogation requires maintaining the heightened standard. | SunTran contends legislature/courts may evolve tort law; anti-abrogation not violated. | Abandoning the doctrine does not violate the anti-abrogation clause. |
| Should the new standard apply retroactively? | Brown argues for prospective application only. | SunTran urges retroactivity per Arizona practice. | Judicial opinion applies retroactively; no substantial inequity in retroactive application. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Pac. Co. v. Hogan, 13 Ariz. 34 (1910) (early common carrier duty; historical basis)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. France, 54 Ariz. 140 (1939) (discussion of highest degree of care instruction; reasonable care ambiguity)
- Napier v. Bertram, 191 Ariz. 238 (1998) (notes on common carrier doctrine without-essential reliance)
- Nichols v. City of Phoenix, 68 Ariz. 124 (1949) (historical context of common carrier duty)
- Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc., 202 Ariz. 190 (App. 2002) (rejects heightened common carrier duty; favors reasonable care)
- Bethel v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 681 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1998) (rejects common carrier heightened standard in favor of reasonable care under circumstances)
- Lunsford v. Tucson Aviation Corp., 73 Ariz. 277 (1952) (early Arizona recognition of carrier duties relative to reasonable care)
- Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Jeanty, 718 A.2d 172 (D.C. 1998) (case aligning common carrier duties with reasonable care)