Leonard v. Golden Touch Transp. of N.Y., Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 15-2084 |
| Parties | FLORA LEONARD and KAREN VELAZQUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN TOUCH TRANSPORTATION OF NEW YORK, INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, and GATEWAY SECURITY, INC., Defendants. GOLDEN TOUCH TRANSPORTATION OF NEW YORK, INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. KAREN VELAZQUEZ, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Defendants Golden Touch Transportation of New York, Inc. ("Golden Touch"), United Airlines, Inc. ("United"), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the "Port Authority"), and Gateway Security, Inc. ("Gateway") (collectively, "Defendants") move for summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiffs Flora Leonard and Karen Velazquez ("Plaintiffs") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF Nos. 89, 92. Plaintiffs oppose. ECFNos. 91, 102. Decided without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, Defendants' motions are granted.
This matter involves a slip and fall suffered by Plaintiff Leonard while at Newark Liberty International Airport ("Newark Airport"). Leonard, accompanied by her daughter, Plaintiff Velazquez, was flying from Norfolk, Virginia to the United Kingdom, via Newark Airport, on flights operated by United. ECF No. 33 (Amended Complaint) at 3-4. Newark Airport is leased to and operated by the Port Authority, id. at 4, and Leonard slipped and fell when stepping onto a bus operated by Golden Touch, id. at 8-10. An electric cart (possibly operated by Gateway) transported Leonard, who uses a cane for mobility assistance, from her initial flight arriving in Newark to the Golden Touch bus, which was to take her to her departing flight. Id. at 10-12. Velazquez accompanied her mother to Newark, saw the injuries Leonard sustained when attempting to board the Golden Touch bus, and provided her first aid. Id. at 12-13. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is that Defendants were negligent in failing to provide proper assistance to Leonard, a disabled passenger.
Defendants moved to dismiss Leonard's initial Complaint (before its amendment) under Federal Rule of Procedure 56 on September 21, 2015, ECF No. 21, and Leonard opposed, ECF No. 22. The Court denied Defendants' motion because the Port Authority had not demonstrated that it owed Leonard no duty of care at the time of her injury. See ECF No. 28.
On August 5, 2014, Leonard and Velazquez were traveling from Norfolk, Virginia to Manchester, England, via Newark Airport1, on flights operated by United. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 1, 3, 25; ECF No. 91-1 at 1-2, 4. Leonard walks with a cane, so Velasquez traveled with Leonard to assist her. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 12; ECF No. 91-1 at 3. Velasquez did not request assistance from United when she booked the trip to Manchester, but she later called United to request aisle seating for Leonard for the duration of their trip; United granted the request. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 13-14; ECF No. 91-1 at 4. Neither Leonard nor Velasquez made any other requests for assistance before their trip. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 16; ECF No. 91-1 at 4.
Before departing Norfolk Airport, Velazquez requested that Leonard be "flagged" for the duration of her flights. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 18; ECF No. 91-1 at 4. United "flagged" Leonard for assistance, and neither Leonard nor Velasquez requested any other mobility assistance. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 19-20; ECF No. 91-1 at 4.2
When Plaintiffs landed at Newark Airport, they boarded an electric cart—which Velasquez requested—to take them to their connecting flight. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 27-28; ECF No. 91-1 at 4. Defendant Gateway operates electric carts for between-flight transportation at Newark Airport, but the parties dispute whether Gateway or United operated the cart in which Plaintiffs rode. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 31-32, 43; ECF No. 91-1 at 5-6.3 The electric cart transported Plaintiffs through the airport terminal to a ramp. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 40; ECF No. 91-1 at 5. The electric cart driver instructed Plaintiffs to walk down the ramp and board a shuttle bus, which would take them to a different terminal for their flight to Manchester. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 41; ECF No. 91-1 at 5. Neither Leonard nor Velasquez requested additional assistance from the electric cart driver. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 45-46; ECF No. 91-1 at 6.
Defendant Golden Touch owned and operated the bus that was to transport Plaintiffs from the bottom of the ramp to their connecting flight. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 47; ECF No. 91-1 at 6. Neither Plaintiff requested any assistance from Golden Touch before boarding. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 51, 54; ECF No. 91-1 at 6.
An airport employee stood at the bottom of the ramp directing Plaintiffs to board the Golden Touch bus. ECF No. 89-3 ¶ 55; ECF No. 91-1 at 6. Velasquez boarded the bus first, and did not request that the Golden Touch driver or anyone else assist Leonard. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 48, 53, 56, 57; ECF No. 91-1 at 6. Leonard then stepped onto the bus without asking the Golden Touch driver for assistance, and fell and cut her leg. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 49-50; ECF No. 91-1 at 6. Velasquez did not help Leonard onto the bus, nor did she see Leonard fall. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 52, 83; ECF No. 91-1 at 6, 13.
The parties dispute the height of the Golden Touch bus at the time Leonard attempted to board it. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 64-65; ECF No. 91-1 at 10, 11. The Golden Touch bus driver, whom Defendants credit, testified that the bus was "kneeling" such that the step onto the bus was 4-5 inches above the ground. ECF No. 89-3 ¶¶ 63-65. Plaintiffs rely on the testimony of a bus passenger who saw Leonard fall; he stated that the step was "about 14 inches" high. ECF No. 91-2 ¶ 22.
Leonard sustained a 15cm laceration on her leg as a result of the fall. ECF No. 91-2 ¶ 19; ECF No. 100-1 at 3. She began bleeding, and Velasquez tried apply a tourniquet to Leonard's leg. ECF No. 91-2 ¶¶ 18, 22; ECF No. 100-1 at 3. Velasquez became covered in her mother's blood. ECF No. 91-2 ¶ 18; ECF No. 100-1 at 3. Velasquez claims to have "sustained emotional distress" from seeing her mother's injuries and needing to provide first aid. ECF No. 33 at 13.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute between the parties must be both genuine and material to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A disputed fact is material where it would affect the outcome of the suit under the relevant substantive law. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). A dispute is genuine where a rational trier of fact could return a verdict for the non-movant. Id.
The movant bears the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529 (2006). Once the movant has carried this burden, the non-movant "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" in question. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)). "[W]ith respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof . . . the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the party opposing the motion must establish that a genuine issue as to a material fact exists. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Lacey Township, 772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations and instead must present actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for trial. Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc., 54 F.3d 1125, 1130-31 (3d Cir. 1995).
Each party must support its position by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Scott, 550 U.S. at 380. At this stage, "the judge's function is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
"To sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements: '(1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) actual damages.'" Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 51 (2015) (quoting Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 584 (2008)). A plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing those elements by some competent proof." Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014). "The threshold inquiry in a negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care." Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp., 598 F.3d 115, 118 (3d Cir. 2010). The existence of a duty of care is generally a matter of law. Id. (citing Carvalho v. Toll Bros. & Developers, 143 N.J. 565, 572 (1996)). "Under New Jersey law, 'whether a person owes a duty of reasonable care toward another turns on whether the imposition of such a duty satisfies an abiding sense of basic fairness under all of the circumstances in light of considerations of public policy.'" Id. (quoting Monaco v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 178 N.J. 401, 418 (2004)).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial