Urquhart v. New York City Transit Authority, 85 N.Y.2d 828 (1995)

To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained when a vehicle suddenly stops, a plaintiff must present objective evidence demonstrating that the stop was ‘unusual and violent,’ exceeding the ordinary jerks and jolts of travel.

Summary

Urquhart sued the New York City Transit Authority for injuries sustained when he fell on a bus. He claimed the bus stopped suddenly and violently, throwing him down the length of the bus. The jury found the Transit Authority 90% at fault. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Urquhart failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Urquhart’s testimony provided sufficient objective evidence of an extraordinary and violent stop beyond mere characterization, warranting a retrial on the weight of the evidence and damages.

Facts

Plaintiff Urquhart boarded a bus in downtown Brooklyn. After paying his fare, he walked toward the rear of the bus. He testified that the bus began moving quickly and that the driver was arguing loudly with another passenger. The bus stopped suddenly and violently. The force of the stop caused Urquhart to fall and slide the entire length of the bus to the front, resulting in injuries to his shoulder, elbow, and knee. The bus driver’s testimony contradicted Urquhart’s account.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the Transit Authority’s motion to dismiss after the jury found the Authority 90% at fault. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint, finding that Urquhart failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the New York City Transit Authority based on an unusually violent and sudden stop of a bus.

Holding

Yes, because the plaintiff’s testimony provided objective evidence that the bus stopped so suddenly and violently as to propel his body down its entire length, causing injuries to his shoulder, elbow, and knee, which is more than a mere characterization of the stop.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that to establish negligence against a common carrier in a sudden stop case, the plaintiff must show that the stop was “unusual and violent” (Trudell v New York R. T. Corp., 281 NY 82, 85). However, merely characterizing the stop as such is insufficient. The Court distinguished Urquhart’s testimony from a mere characterization, noting that he provided objective evidence of the force of the stop. Specifically, Urquhart testified that the bus stopped so suddenly and violently that he was propelled down the entire length of the bus, resulting in specific injuries. This provided sufficient evidence to infer that the stop was extraordinary and violent, differing from the normal jerks and jolts of city bus travel, attributable to the Transit Authority’s negligence. The court emphasized that such testimony “provided more than a mere characterization of the stop. It also provided objective evidence of the force of the stop sufficient to establish an inference that the stop was extraordinary and violent, of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant.” Since the Appellate Division dismissed the complaint based solely on the legal insufficiency of the evidence, the Court of Appeals remitted the case to the Appellate Division to consider the Transit Authority’s arguments regarding the weight of the evidence and the excessiveness of damages.