Mangini v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority

Decision Date22 September 1975
Citation235 Pa.Super. 478,344 A.2d 621
PartiesDolores MANGINI, a minor by her parent and natural guardian, Dolores Mangini, et al. v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Matthew J. Ryan, III, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Allen L. Feingold, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

JACOBS, Judge:

The minor plaintiffs in the present action were injured while riding defendant-appellant's trackless trolley when a number of unidentified assailants boarded the vehicle and attacked the passengers. We agree with the court below that the appellant, a common carrier, is liable for the minors' injuries due to the failure of its driver to act to protect his passengers. We will therefore affirm the judgment entered in favor of appellees. 1

At the time of the incident the minor plaintiffs were high school students attending St. Maria Goretti High School. In order to get to and from school, these students took the Tasker Street trackless trolley operated by the appellant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). It is the testimony of both sides that certain neighborhoods through which the trolley must travel to transport the high school students represent a continuous source of violence and danger to buses and passengers. Prior to the incident with which we are here concerned, a number of complaints had been registered with both SEPTA and the police by the parents of children who found it necessary to use this line indicating concern for the safety of the children traveling on the trolleys. In response to these complaints, extra trolleys were run on the route when the school released its students, and the police were requested to supervise the transportation of the children. When available, police cars trailed trolleys carrying students through the dangerous neighborhoods.

There is a conflict in the testimony regarding the incident in which the injuries here complained of occurred. The minor plaintiffs testify that as the trolley pulled up to a stop which was across the street from a playground, a group of boys began to pelt the vehicle with bottles and other objects. When the front doors of the trolley were opened, about five boys boarded without paying a fare and ran down the aisle striking passengers. At the center of the trolley there is another door which is used as an exit and is operated from the inside by stepping on a treadle. One of the invading boys depressed the treadle step causing the exit doors to open, and another group of approximately 15 more boys rushed into the trolley. These boys joined in the assault on the passengers. At some point during the fray, two of the minor plaintiffs were struck on the head with bottles and lost consciousness. The third was punched in the face. During the assault the passengers shouted to the bus driver urging him to drive on or assist them. The driver allegedly did not respond until the boys had fled from the trolley. He then closed the doors and drove a few blocks to a store where a woman called the police.

The driver of the trolley and other witnesses for SEPTA testify to a somewhat different series of events. The driver stated that he stopped at the corner by the playground in order to allow some passengers to disembark. No boys ran through the front doors when they were opened, but the center exit doors were opened, presumably by a passenger getting out. The driver and other witnesses pointed out that the trolleys are equipped with a safety feature which does not permit the vehicle to move when the central doors are open. Shortly after he stopped, while the trolley was immobilized by reason of the open center doors, the driver heard screaming and commotion among his passengers, and bottles breaking against the outside of the trolley. He was unable to see any fighting due to the people moving around in the aisles. As soon as the doors were closed, he moved the trolley a few blocks away where he called the SEPTA radio room, the center he is instructed to contact when trouble occurs on the route.

There is no dispute that appellant SEPTA is a common carrier and therefore held to the highest degree of care. See Sommers v. Hessler,227 Pa.Super. 41, 323 A.2d 17 (1974). A public carrier is not an insurer of its passengers' safety, but liability is imposed for injuries resulting from negligent conduct on the part of the carrier. Sykes v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Authority, 225 Pa.Super. 69, 310 A.2d 277 (1973). In the case where a third person, whether a passenger or otherwise, acts in a violent, criminal or negligent manner, the carrier has a duty to protect the other passengers from his misbehavior to the degree possible. "It is (the duty of passenger carriers) to repress disorder . . . and in case there is any reasonable ground to apprehend that other passengers may suffer physical injury from the violence of disorderly passengers it is their duty to use every means at their command to protect other passengers and restrain, and if necessary remove . . . the disorderly parties." Gerlach v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 94 Pa.Super. 121, 129 (1928), Quoting Barlick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 41 Pa.Super. 87, 92 (1909). If necessary, the employees of a carrier may enlist the assistance of willing passengers, police, or other authorities to quell a disturbance. See La Sota v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 421 Pa. 386, 219 A.2d 296 (1966); Kennedy v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 32 Pa.Super. 623 (1907). When these measures are not employed and a passenger is injured, the carrier is liable if prior to the injury the conduct of the offending parties indicated a disposition to engage in violent, harmful behavior, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of injury to other parties. See Kerns v. Philadelphia R.R. Co., 366 Pa. 477, 77 A.2d 381 (1951).

In the present case, appellant SEPTA has argued that the evidence is insufficient to show that prior to the injury the offensive individuals indicated a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1985
    ...Green Bus Lines v. Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. (1942) 287 N.Y. 309, 39 N.E.2d 251, 253; Mangini v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Au. (1975), 235 Pa.Super. 478, 344 A.2d 621, 623; Hanback v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad (D.S.C.1975) 396 F.Supp. 80, 86; City of Dallas v. Jackson (Tex.1......
  • VIA Metro. Transit v. Meck
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 26, 2020
    ...O'Dee v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. , 212 Or.App. 456, 157 P.3d 1272, 1275 (2007) (same); Mangini v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. , 235 Pa.Super. 478, 344 A.2d 621, 621–22 (1975) (same); White v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty. , 860 S.W.2d 49, 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (same).8......
  • Maison v. N.J. Transit Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 17, 2021
    ...passengers the highest degree of care and skill practicable for it to exercise." (quotation omitted)); Mangini v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 235 Pa.Super. 478, 344 A.2d 621, 623 (1975) ("There is no dispute that appellant SEPTA is a common carrier and therefore held to the highest degree of car......
  • Maison v. NJ Transit Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 17, 2019
    ...transportation systems as common carriers. See Blackwell v. Fernandez, 324 Ill.App. 597, 59 N.E.2d 342 (1945) ; Mangini v. SEPTA, 235 Pa.Super. 478, 344 A.2d 621 (1975) ; White v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 860 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). California, whose own Tort Clai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT