Monaco v. Harran's Transp. Co., Inc.

• Citation: 220 A.D.2d 564,632 N.Y.S.2d 814
• Parties: Patricia MONACO, et al., Appellants, v. HARRAN'S TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
• Decision Date: 16 October 1995
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 814

632 N.Y.S.2d 814

220 A.D.2d 564

Patricia MONACO, et al., Appellants, v. HARRAN'S TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 16, 1995.

Vessa & Wilensky P.C., Mineola (Michael P. Vessa, of counsel), for appellants.

Clausen Miller, P.C., New York City (James T. Ferrini, Maryann Peronti, and Melinda S. Kollross, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BALLETTA, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered May 20, 1994, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Harran's Transportation Co., Inc., and John Cantidate, sued herein as John Smith, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs, Patricia and Edward Monaco, sued, among others, the defendant Harran's Transportation Co. and its bus driver, John Cantidate (hereinafter collectively Harran's) to recover damages for personal injuries to Patricia Monaco resulting from her slip and fall on a bus platform outside a casino in New Jersey. The Supreme Court, applying New Jersey law, dismissed the complaint against Harran's on the ground that Harran's, as a common carrier, had not breached its duty of ordinary care to Mrs. Monaco, as she was not yet engaged in boarding the bus. We now affirm.

The appellants do not challenge the court's finding that New Jersey law applied. It is well settled under New Jersey law that a duty of ordinary care is imposed on a common carrier with regard to sidewalks, streets, loading platforms, or other places of ingress and egress to and from the carrier (see, Kantonides v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 802 F.Supp. 1203; Buchner v. Erie R.R. Co., 17 N.J. 283, 111 A.2d 257; Horelick v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 13 N.J. 349, 99 A.2d 652; Sullivan v. La Frade, 14 N.J.Misc. 482, 185 A. 665, affd. 117 N.J.L. 442, 189 A. 365; Seckler v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Sandler v. Hudson & M.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 151 A. 99, affd. 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459). We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments that Harran's owed Mrs. Monaco a duty of extraordinary care, as she was not, at the time of her injury, a passenger aboard or in the act of boarding a bus operated by Harran's (cf., D'Amico v. Great Am. Recreation, 265 N.J.Super. 496, 627 A.2d 1164; Ricci v. Am. Airlines, 226 N.J.Super. 377, 544 A.2d 428; Kovacs v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 76 N.J.Super. 451, 184 A.2d 873; Carter v. Public Serv. Coord. Trans., 47 N.J.Super. 379, 136 A.2d 15; Harpell v. Public Serv. Coord....