In J* v MTA Bus Co., the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of the MTA Bus Company and the New York City Transit Authority. The case arose from an incident in which plaintiff J* claimed she was injured after falling on a moving bus. She alleged the fall resulted from the bus’s motion and brought a negligence claim seeking damages for personal injuries.
To prevail in such a case against a common carrier, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the movement of the vehicle was “unusual and violent,” not merely one of the routine “jerks and jolts” typical of city bus travel. This standard, long established in New York jurisprudence, requires objective evidence of a deviation from ordinary operation.
The defendants met their initial burden for summary judgment by submitting surveillance footage from the bus that captured the event. The video demonstrated that the bus’s movement was not out of the ordinary, supporting the assertion that there was no “unusual or violent” motion that could give rise to negligence liability. The court emphasized that a plaintiff’s own characterization of an incident as violent is not enough without objective support.
In opposing the motion, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence—such as expert testimony or alternative footage—that could raise a triable issue of fact. Without such proof, the court found no grounds to dispute the defendants' evidence.
Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the claim against the transit defendants, reinforcing the principle that claims arising from commonplace transit conditions require substantial proof to survive summary judgment. This ruling echoes a long line of decisions that distinguish everyday transit movements from the exceptional conduct necessary to impose liability on public carriers.
Apparently, not every bump deserves a payout ....
# # #
DECISION