JENKINTOWN PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS

SEPTA’s defense lawyers have been making the argument that they are not a “common carrier” because they are affiliated with the state or are a quasi-state agency. Before we analyze whether they are correct, we must first ask “Why are they making this argument?” The reason is based upon the varying standard of care that their operators must use in operating SEPTA buses, trolleys and trains. Pennsylvania Law requires a common carrier to use a higher degree of care for the safety of its passengers than that ordinarily imposed on others. In other words, a SEPTA driver must use a higher degree of care for the safety of you, its passenger, as compared to a driver of a car you occupy. The law says “any failure of the [common carrier] to use such care is negligence.” This makes sense if you think about it. SEPTA is providing public transportation for a fee. You as a passenger have no ability to protect yourself. So, you are relying upon the SEPTA operators to take you to your destination with the highest degree of care for your safety.

I have seen this argument being made more and more by SEPTA. The first time I saw it made was in a trial against SEPTA and its trolley operator last August. SEPTA made the same argument to the presiding judge but the argument was quickly denied and the common carrier jury instruction was provided to the jury. More recently, SEPTA used the argument at an arbitration I was attending for a client. Again, the argument failed.

As a Bus Accident Lawyer, I understand the reason why SEPTA tries to make the argument, however, I find the argument flawed. Yes, they are a quasi-state entity and enjoy the immunities of the State. However, they are also a common carrier and should  be subject to the common carrier jury charge. A common carrier is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “any carrier required by law to convey passengers or freight without refusal if the approved fair or charge is paid” and “one who holds himself out to the public as engaged in the business of transportation of person for compensation.”

Although I believe the argument is meritless, I expect SEPTA’s lawyers will continue to make the argument