Johnson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON; POPE, P.J., and HAROLD R. BANKE |
| Citation | Johnson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 495 S.E.2d 583, 230 Ga.App. 105 (Ga. App. 1998) |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A1799,A97A1799 |
| Parties | , 98 FCDR 266 JOHNSON et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY. |
McArthur & McArthur, John J. McArthur, Athens, for appellants.
Miriam D. Lancaster, Atlanta, for appellee.
Jimmy Johnson and his wife, Willie Johnson, sued Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority ("MARTA") for personal injuries sustained by Jimmy Johnson and for loss of consortium. The action arose from the stabbing of Jimmy Johnson by an unidentified assailant at a MARTA rail station and alleged that MARTA failed to provide adequate security to control the crowd waiting to enter the station and failed to provide sufficient trains for the crowd. The trial court granted MARTA's motion for summary judgment, and the Johnsons appeal. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-movant, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991). Id.
Viewed in that light, the record shows the following: Following a tractor pull event at the Georgia Dome on January 8, 1994, Jimmy Johnson, his son, a neighbor and the neighbor's son were waiting in a crowd of patrons outside the faregates of MARTA's Omni rail station to board a train. As Jimmy Johnson waited, he felt "something warm" on his back, touched his back with his hand and realized he was bleeding and had been cut. Johnson had no advance warning that he was in danger of criminal attack. Johnson alerted a MARTA police officer stationed in the faregate area who came to his aid. Neither Johnson nor anyone else could identify who stabbed him. The officer took a report and attempted to locate a suspect, but no identification or arrest was made.
In order to establish a cause of action for MARTA's negligent failure to provide adequate security and trains, the Johnsons must show that MARTA owed a duty to Jimmy Johnson to make such provisions, that MARTA breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. See Robertson v. MARTA, 199 Ga.App. 681, 405 S.E.2d 745 (1991). "It is well established that the occurrence of an unfortunate event is not sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 682, 405 S.E.2d 745. In the case before us, we need not address Jimmy Johnson's status outside the faregates because his cause of action fails even under the strictest "extraordinary diligence" standard of care set forth in OCGA § 46-9-132 for passengers of common carriers.
Southeastern Stages v. Stringer, 263 Ga. 641, 643, 437 S.E.2d 315 (1993).
1. The Johnsons first allege that Jimmy Johnson's assault was foreseeable because MARTA was on notice that additional officers were needed to maintain control of the crowd. Jimmy Johnson testified that the officer who assisted him after the stabbing stated...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Individually v. Global Payments, Inc.
...that the occurrence of an unfortunate event is not sufficient to authorize an inference of negligence." Johnson v. MARTA, 230 Ga. App. 105, 106, 495 S.E.2d 583, 584 (1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons and authority discussed, the court RECOMMENDS that Pl......
-
Stewart v. Central of Georgia R. Co.
...cannot recover emotional damages, his wife cannot recover for any resulting loss of consortium. Johnson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 230 Ga.App. 105, 107, 495 S.E.2d 583 (1998). Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate as to loss of consortium arising from the engineer's e......
-
Roberson v. Seaspan Corp.
...v. Earling Shipping Co., No. 2:97-cv-121, 1998 WL 684206, at *5 (S.D. Ga. May 4, 1998) (citing Johnson v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 230 Ga.App. 105, 495 S.E.2d 583, 585 (1998) ; Holloway v. Northside Hosp., 230 Ga.App. 371, 496 S.E.2d 510, 511 (1998) ).7 Clause 1, in pertinent par......
-
Goodhart v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
...law cannot be utilized to support or defeat motions for summary judgment." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. MARTA , 230 Ga. App. 105, 107 (1), 495 S.E.2d 583 (1998).We cannot simply assume that Lauren witnessed or even knew AGL performed checks in the residence when it connect......