New York Law Review

Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority, 68 N.Y.2d 165 (1986): Duty of Transit Authority Employees to Aid Passengers Under Attack

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority, 68 N.Y.2d 165 (1986)

A publicly owned common carrier can be held liable for the negligence of its employees who fail to render aid to a passenger under attack by a third party, provided the employee could have summoned help without risk to themselves, as this falls outside the scope of governmental immunity.

Summary

Steven Crosland, Jr., was fatally injured during an attack by hoodlums on a subway platform. His estate sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), alleging negligence in failing to provide adequate police presence and in employees’ failure to assist during the attack. The NYCTA moved for summary judgment, arguing governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals held that while the NYCTA is generally immune from liability for resource allocation decisions (like policing), its employees have a duty to render aid to passengers when they can do so safely. Failure to act in such a situation can be actionable negligence.

Facts

Steven Crosland, Jr., and friends were attacked by a group of hoodlums armed with weapons on a subway platform. The attack occurred at the 125th Street station of the Independent subway line. There were no police present at the station during the attack. Some track workers witnessed the attack but did nothing to summon aid. At least two trains passed through the station during the attack, and the train personnel also did nothing.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the NYCTA, the City of New York, the Board of Education, and the Police Department. The trial court dismissed the claims against the City, Board of Education, and Police Department, and the plaintiff did not appeal that dismissal. The NYCTA moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial and granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, certifying the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

Issue(s)

  1. Whether the NYCTA is immune from liability for the failure to provide adequate police presence at the subway station.
  2. Whether the NYCTA can be held liable for the failure of its employees to render aid to a passenger under attack when the employees could have done so without risk to themselves.

Holding

  1. No, because the allocation of police resources is a governmental function for which the NYCTA cannot be held liable.
  2. Yes, because an employee witnessing an assault who unreasonably fails to summon aid, although they can do so safely, acts outside the scope of governmental immunity.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., which held that a publicly owned carrier could not be liable for the allocation of police resources. The Court emphasized that Weiner did not provide blanket immunity for all actions of NYCTA employees. The Court stated, “[i]t is the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred which governs liability, not whether the agency involved is engaged generally in proprietary activity.” The Court reasoned that while resource allocation is a governmental function, the failure of an employee to render aid when they can do so safely is an operational act for which the NYCTA can be held liable. The court noted that the NYCTA’s own regulations and common standards of behavior suggest that employees have a duty to assist passengers in distress when they can do so safely. Quoting from the opinion, the court found that “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable.” The Court rejected the argument that exposing the NYCTA to liability would be burdensome, stating that this concern must be balanced against the policies of compensating victims and ensuring that public authorities manage their systems responsibly. The dissent is not mentioned as there wasn’t one.

More ARTICLES