MARGARET ADAMS, APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.
88 N.Y.2d 116, 666 N.E.2d 216, 643 N.Y.S.2d 511(1996).
May 2, 1996
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
1 No. 95(1996 NY Int. 100)
Decided May 2, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Garnett H. Sullivan, for Appellant.
Lawrence Heisler, for Respondent.
TITONE, J.:
In 1882, this Court held that a common carrier is liable to
passengers for the torts of its employees regardless of whether those
torts were committed within or outside the scope of their employment
(Stewart v Brooklyn & Crosstown R.R. Co., 90 NY 588). This appeal
requires us to determine whether the New York City Transit Authority
may be held liable under this holding for injuries sustained by a
subway rider as a result of an unprovoked attack by a Transit
Authority token booth clerk. Concluding that the liability rule
enunciated in 1882 is no longer viable as a matter of law or policy,
we hold that the token booth clerk's assaultive conduct, which was
indisputably outside the scope of her employment, does not give rise
to vicarious liability on the part of her employer.
According to the complaint allegations and deposition testimony,
plaintiff Margaret Adams was waiting in line to purchase a subway
token when she heard the clerk inside the token booth yelling at the
man immediately in front of her. After the man walked away, plaintiff
stepped up to the booth, slid her fare through the opening in the
window and asked for directions to her destination. Inexplicably, the
clerk responded with a barrage of verbal abuse.
Shocked by the clerk's reaction, plaintiff walked away from the
booth, placed her token in the slot and attempted to proceed through
the turnstile. Her movement was interrupted, however, when she was
assaulted from behind by the token clerk, pushed to the ground and
choked. The incident ended when plaintiff's companion, who had been
waiting on line with her, called for help and obtained the assistance
of a man who pulled the assailant away from plaintiff. According to
SNIPPETS:
In 1882, this Court held that a common carrier is liable to passengers for the torts of its
This appeal requires us to determine whether the New York City Transit Authority may be held
Concluding that the liability rule enunciated in 1882 is no longer viable as a matter of law
According to the complaint allegations and deposition testimony, plaintiff Margaret Adams was
Plaintiff commenced the present action for damages against the Transit Authority, alleging
the Appellate Division reversed this aspect of Supreme Court's ruling and modified its order
The modern justification for the doctrine lies in the view that "(tlhe losses caused by the
It follows from this rationale that torts which are outside the scope of employment and are
One particularly significant exception to the general rule is the expansive liability that
An assault on a passenger by a carrier's employee constituted a breach of this contractual
In the past, carriers were held subject to a higher duty of care, and terms like "absolute
R.R. Co., supra, at 354, quoting Thompson on Negligence § 3186; see, Harper, James & Gray,
|
