Attorney John Girouard successfully obtained the dismissal of a private transportation company in a case pending in Hampden Superior Court. The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the defendant bus company alleging she sustained personal injuries after falling while walking to a new pickup location after the transportation company changed the location of the pickup due to road closures during Halloween festival activities. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff alleged she sustained serious personal injuries including a fractured humerus and shoulder injuries.
The plaintiff claimed the defendant owed her a duty of care as a common carrier and that the duty was breached when the plaintiff had to navigate dimly lit public sidewalks and suffered a fall. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff at the time of the incident and that her injury was too attenuated from their actions.
The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a valid claim for negligence. The court concluded that the defendant had no duty of care to the plaintiff in this instance since its role as a common carrier had ended, and the plaintiff was traveling independently in a public area at the time of her injury.
The court acknowledged a common carrier’s duty to ensure passengers’ safety while alighting and within the carrier’s control. However, the court found this duty does not extend to the movement of passengers on public streets after disembarkation. The plaintiff’s injury occurred while walking to a new pickup location, outside the defendant’s control. Massachusetts precedent, such as McManus v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. and related cases, supports the principle that a carrier is not responsible for conditions of public streets or independent decisions made by prospective passengers regarding their route. Unlike exceptional cases where carriers provided specific transit instructions or guidance (e.g., Powers v. Old Colony St. Ry.), the defendant did not have knowledge or control of the hazards encountered by the plaintiff.
The court determined the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the duty or foreseeability required to sustain her negligence claim and granted the motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant bus company.