In Huang v. The Bicycle Casino, Inc., 2016 DJDAR 10389, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that a triable issue of material fact existed as to whether a shuttle operated for casino patrons was subject to a higher duty of care as a common carrier.
In Huang the plaintiff/appellant was injured while boarding a shuttle bus provided by defendant/respondent The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (the “casino”) to transport passengers from landmarks on public streets to the casino. Both patrons with players cards for the casino, and those without players cards, could board the shuttle. Plaintiff was in a crowd of people waiting to board the shuttle at one of the landmarks. When the shuttle arrived, the crowd ran towards it to board. Plaintiff was stepping onto the first step of the shuttle when the crowd surged and pushed her, causing her to fall and break her hip.
Plaintiff sued the casino for negligence, alleging that the casino was a common carrier and had a duty to ensure the safety of its patrons who took the shuttle, including during boarding. The trial court granted the casino’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the casino was not a common carrier, and owed only an ordinary duty of care to the shuttle passengers. This ordinary duty of care did not extend to protecting passengers from being bumped by other passengers during boarding. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the casino shuttle was a common carrier. Whether a party is a common carrier for reward may be decided as a matter of law when the material facts are not in dispute, and this determination is based on four factors: (1) whether the party maintained an established place of business for the purpose of transporting passengers; (2) whether the party engaged in transportation as a regular business and not as a casual or occasional undertaking; (3) whether the party advertised its transportation services to the general public; and (4) whether the party charged standard rates for its service. Not all factors must be present for the party to be a common carrier subject to a higher duty of care. A common carrier for reward must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances.
In Huang, the evidence supported that the shuttle was for reward in the same sense as department store escalators and elevators are for reward. The shuttle, like an escalator/elevator, assist patrons in shopping and spending money, or in the case of the casino, gambling and losing money, at the premises. The casino advertised the shuttle to a select group of people, but also offered the shuttle indiscriminately to the public, as anyone wishing to go to the casino could board the shuttle. While the casino did not maintain an established place of business solely for transporting passengers, the Court of Appeal held this was not determinative. Department stores and ski resorts also do not maintain such a place of business, but their escalators, elevators and ski lifts have been found to be common carriers for reward.
The Court of Appeal also held that even if an ordinary duty of care were applied in Huang, a triable issue of material fact existed as to whether it extended to where and how to board passengers onto the shuttle. The absence of other falls while boarding the shuttle was not determinative, nor was the intervening wrongful conduct of the third parties who bumped plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal determined that public policy considerations weighed against the creation of a no duty rule. For these reasons, the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the casino was reversed.
Huang is an important holding for hotels, casinos, and other retail establishments who offer transportation to their patrons or who may do so in the future. Should the transportation services meet even one of the above common carrier factors, this may provide the basis for a finding that the establishment is a common carrier subject to a heightened standard of care, in a personal injury lawsuit relating to a patron’s use of that transportation.
This document is intended to provide you with information about legal developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.