Injuries Caused by Public Transportation and Other Common Carriers

Many Illinois residents rely on common carriers for every day, local transportation. A “common carrier” transports goods or people for any person or company. Examples of common carriers include, but are not limited to: public transportation systems, such as the CTA; disability services, such as PACE vehicles; ambulances; railroads; airlines; and taxi cabs. Common carriers have the highest duty of care when transporting passengers, meaning that they must ensure that their equipment is properly maintained and safely operated from the moment a passenger enters the carrier until the passenger safely exits. Nonetheless, passengers still sustain injuries due to common carrier negligence.

Those who regularly use public transportation—such as the CTA or Metra—likely know that they are not always the smoothest ride. In Browne v. Chicago Transit Authority, a passenger riding a CTA bus stood up from her seat and walked toward the door as the bus approached her stop. 19. Ill. App. 3d 914 (1st Dist. 1974). The bus driver made a sudden stop and the passenger fell to the floor, sustaining injuries. The court found that the evidence showed that the bus driver was not paying sufficient attention to the road and had no legitimate excuse for suddenly stopping the bus, which amounted to a violation of the high duty of care imposed on common carriers.

Sometimes, incidents involving common carriers can result in severe injuries. In Barton v. Chicago and North Western Transp. Co., a passenger boarded a Metra train to travel to the northern side of Chicago. 325 Ill. App. 3d 1005, (1st Dist. 2001). As she attempted to exit, a case she was carrying on her shoulder became stuck in a couple of poles, and the train doors closed on her. Her attempts to free herself were unsuccessful, and the train started moving forward. As the Metra train dragged her down the station platform, her legs wound up under the wheels of the train. One of her legs was mutilated, while the other was missing entirely. A jury found Metra liable to the passenger, and awarded the passenger a total of nearly $29 million in damages. Metra, as a common carrier, violated its high duty of care to the passenger because it did not ensure that mechanisms were in place to alert the conductor that the door had not fully closed.

These examples are not the only occasions where common carriers have caused an injury to a passenger. Perhaps one of the more recent and noteworthy instances of common carrier negligence is the United Airlines controversy, where a passenger was forcefully removed from an airplane before takeoff. If you were injured on a common carrier such as public transportation, a railroad, or a taxi, and you feel that the common carrier was responsible, you may be able to recover monetary damages from the carrier. Contact the attorneys at the Sherwood Law Group at 312-627-1650 for a free consultation, and let us get to work on securing the result that you deserve.235 ILCS 5/6-21(a).

In order to maintain a claim against a tavern under the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the tavern sold intoxicating liquor to a tortfeasor, (2) that the liquor contributed to the tortfeasor’s intoxication, and (3) that the intoxication caused the tortfeasor to harm the plaintiff. From the plaintiff’s perspective, the Dram Shop Act allows the Plaintiff to recover money damages against the venue that sold the Defendant alcohol.

If a plaintiff was hit by an intoxicated driver and suffered a broken arm, broken nose, or other injuries. The plaintiff could bring a normal negligence claim against the driver and recover damages from the driver’s insurance policy. If an investigation reveals that the defendant had been drinking at three different taverns throughout the evening, each of those three taverns could potentially have (1) sold liquor to the driver, which (2) contributed to his/her intoxication, and as a result, (3) caused the driver to crash into the plaintiff’s car. Potentially, those three taverns could serve as defendants from which the plaintiff could recover damages. Depending on the facts, an investigation would have to reveal that employees of the Defendant had knowledge or should have been able to determine the Defendant was intoxicated at the time of being served. If that service caused or contributed to the intoxication of the Defendant and the Defendant later caused injury. Dramshop insurance may apply.

The Dram Shop Act also covers incidents that happen inside the venue. If an intoxicated person is overserved alcohol and strikes and injures a third party causing injuries, under the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff could bring a claim against the venue if the defendant was negligently overserved wherein the venue’s employees had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the Defendant was intoxicated and nonetheless continued to serve the Defendant alcohol. Oftentimes the alleged intoxicated person becomes a Defendant but also a Plaintiff’s witness if they or other witnesses can confirm that he/she was overserved the night of the incident.

This information is meant to provide a basic introduction into the Dram Shop Act; there are additional subtleties to the Act that can affect the strength of a plaintiff’s claim. Some of those subtleties include damages caps and how much liquor a tavern must provide to constitute “contributing” to the tortfeasor’s intoxication, among others. As such, those injured by an intoxicated person should explore every possible means of recovery in a personal injury situation involving a bar, restaurant or other venue that serves alcohol. If you have been injured as a result of intoxication, at a bar, restraint, store, or other venue that serves alcohol, contact the attorneys at the Sherwood Law Group today and allow them to investigate any and every possible litigation route available