Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority

 703 N.E.2d 1214

N.E. = Northeast Reporter.  Decided in New York, in 1998

Courts: New York Trial Court (trial court) (ruled in favor of Plaintiff)

New York Court Appellate Division (affirmed decision)

New York Court of Appeals (remanded decision)

Facts Summary:

Bethel = Plaintiff, Appellant

Transit Authority = Defendant, Appellee

Bethel sat in a "wheelchair accessible seat" (folds up to create space for a wheelchair). Upon sitting the chair collapsed to the floor and Bethel sustained serious back injuries.

Bethel Utilized constructive notice (defendant is responsible for being aware of something although they might not have been actively aware of it). Bethel cited a record of standard maintenance repairs that occurred days prior because the record stated adjustments and alignments to the wheelchair accessible seat.

Procedure:

In New Your Transit Authority was deemed responsible for damages because of not acting on the constructive notice. In trial court "the court charged the jury that Defendant, as a common carrier, had a duty to use the 'highest degree of care' in the maintenance of its vehicles and equipment". The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed however failed to address the "highest degree of care"

Issues: 

The issue that faced the Court of Appeals did not regard the use of constructive notice or its liability, but rather the Transit Authority’s level of responsibility in preventing similar incidents. In charging the trial jury, it was instructed as legal fact that common carriers (like the New York Transit Authority) have a duty to use the highest degree of care possible. Does a common carrier have a duty of extraordinary care for its passengers? If not, what duty does a common carrier bear for its passengers?

Holding:

The duty of extraordinary care no longer applied to common carriers and is replaced with duty of reasonable care.

Reasoning:

Duty of extraordinary care to common carriers was adopted by states in the 19^th century for railroads. At the time railcars were relatively dangerous and required the highest maintenance standards. Court of Appeals determined that it is unreasonable to require the duty of extraordinary care and it is based on outdated standards. Duty or reasonable care can be modified on a case by case basis because it is practical to require the highest care one reasonably can.  

Impact:

Changed the duty of care required by common carriers.

Peter J. Limone v. United States of America

579 F.3d 79; 2009 U.S. App.

F. 3d = Federal Reporter 3^rd edition (federal appeals courts)

Courts: Suffolk County Federal District Court (Vacated Convictions)

Federal Appeals Court (affirmed)

Facts Summary:

Limone = Plaintiff, Appellant

USA = Defendant, Appellee

A man was murdered in 1965 by 3 men who shot him 6 times. The case went cold and two years later a hit man connected with organized crime informed law enforcement that 3 men (including Limone) were involved with the murder.

The FBI used bugs and other sources to attempt to bring down organized crime. While using the bugs the FBI found out the accused three men were innocent.

The FBI knowing this information proceeded in their case against the men. The accused were sentenced to life in prison for the 1^st degree murder based on a false testimony and federal agents that confirmed the testimony.

Years later 5 memoranda (showing the men’s innocence) became known and the surviving men and estates/families of the diseased filed a lawsuits against the government using Federal Tort Claims Act.

Procedure:

After learning of the 5 memoranda Federal district court vacated the men’s convictions and awarded over $100,000,000 in total damages to the men and their families. The United States Appealed.

Issues: 

Was the Federal Government liable for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)? Were the damages awarded by the District Court appropriate?

Holding:

The court of appeals found that the government was liable for damages and the FTCA exceptions did not apply in this case. They found the awarded damages to be high, but not extremely disproportionate to what a reasonable person would expect. 

Reasoning:

Government is liable for damages under Federal Tort Claims Act. The Government felt that they were not liable under the discretionary function of the FTCA which exempted the government for certain torts that occurred as a part of a government employee’s duties. The court found that the request for exception was too broad because any action of a federal employee could be a discretionary function exemption. The court upheld the lower court’s opinion.

The government also claimed immunity from torts committed before the FTCA was amended. The court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress (tort in lawsuit) is not a tort that is listed in exceptions of the FTCA.

Government also argued that plaintiffs had insufficient evidence however transcripts, tapes and review of due process showed government withholding and misusing information.

Court stated that the damages were high but they were not “grossly disproportionate.”

Impact:

Limited the exceptions under FTCA.

Florida vs. Bostick

501 U.S. 429

Courts: Trial Court – Denied motion to suppress evidence, Bostick pled guilty

Florida District Court of Appeals (affirmed ruling)

Florida Supreme Court – ruled the seizure was unconstitutional

United States Supreme Court

Facts Summary:

Florida= Plaintiff, Appellee, Respondent, petitioner

Bostick = Defendant, Appellant, Petitioner, respondent

Terrance Bostick was aboard a Greyhound bus traveling from Miami, Florida to Atlanta, Georgia in 1991.  Two officers board the bus during a stop, which was not uncommon at the time.  In Broward County, Florida, the Sheriff Department was attempting to eliminate drug trafficking, so they would routinely board busses and ask passengers’ permission to search their luggage. The officers approached Bostick without any suspicion, and they stated that they were narcotics agents.  Next, they asked for his permission to search his luggage, advised him of his right to refuse, and also at no point in time was Bostick threatened by a gun.  They obtained his permission and found cocaine in his luggage and arrested him. 

        Bostick filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the trial court because based on his knowledge the evidence was illegally obtained through the violation of his fourth amendment rights.  The issue at hand was his ability to refuse the search. 

Procedure:

Bostick motioned to suppress the evidence of the cocaine.  The trial court denied the motion, therefore, Bostick pled guilty, and he reserved the right to appeal the motion to suppress ruling.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling made in the trial court.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled that this seizure was unconstitutional.  The reason that it was ruled as violating his fourth amendment rights is because a reasonable passenger in that situation would not have “felt free to leave the bus to avoid questioning by the police.”  The act of asking for permission to search a person’s luggage in a public area was far different than asking for permission in a confined area in a bus.  Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court adopted a per se rule which stated that the Broward County Sherriff Department’s searches on scheduled bus stops was unconstitutional.  This case had federal jurisdiction because it was a constitutional issue, and after the State of Florida’s writ of certiorari was granted it continued to the United States Supreme Court.

Issues: 

The issues in this case surrounded the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures being prohibited.  The question at the forefront of this case was “Is it a violation of the fourth amendment clause against unreasonable searches and seizures for the authorities to conduct random bus searches after receiving consent from passengers?”

Holding:

The United States Supreme Court ruled in majority of this case being reversed and remanded.  The case was remanded to the Florida Court system to evaluate the seizure under the correct legal standard.  The holding was that the Florida Supreme Court erred in adopting a per se rule stating that every encounter on a bus is a seizure.  The Supreme Court also observed that if an officer has no basis for suspicion, they may still ask questions.

Reasoning:

The reasoning behind the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse and remand the case stemmed from the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court focusing improperly on the passenger being ‘free to leave’.  If a person is walking down a street, and an officer tries to stop and question them, it makes sense that a reasonable person might continue walking.  More often than not, that encounter would not be considered a seizure.  On a bus, when a passenger is seated and the officers enter the bus, the “degree to which a reasonable person would feel free to leave is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of the encounter.”  In Bostick’s case, he was in a sense, ‘confined,’ but that came from the result of taking the bus.  “The mere fact that Bostick did not feel free to leave the bus does not mean that the police seized him.”  In summation, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding each particular encounter to determine whether it is a seizure as well as whether the police communicated to the passenger that he or she was free to decline a request for the police to search. 

Impact:

4^th amendment – Limited the rights of searches and seizures. Each case has its own interpretation. Limits citizen’s rights when defining confinement and when a person is “free to leave.”

Adair v. United States

208 U.S. 161 (1908)

Courts: District Court of the US for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Adair found guilty)

US Supreme Court (Court Remanded)

Facts Summary:

Adair= Defendant, Petitioner

United States = Plaintiff, Respondant

The Erdman Act of 1898 “made it illegal for employers to fire employees solely on the basis of their participation in labor unions”. It prohibited “yellow-dog” contracts, which are contracts that employers would make employees sign saying they would not join a labor union.  This law was passed in order to prevent labor strife, which hindered interstate commerce.

William Adair and O.B. Coppage were employees at Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. O.B. Coppage was a locomotive fireman, and a member of a labor union. Adair fired Coppage for this reason, therefore, violating the Erdman Act. Adair was taken to court by Coppage and the court found him guilty.  Adair challenged that decision saying it violated his rights protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Procedure:

The original case brought upon Adair was in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Coppage claimed that his termination violated the Erdman Act of 1989; Adair counter-argued that it was insufficient in law. His argument was overruled, and the Erdman Act was found to be constitutional.  The court found Adair guilty, and ordered him to pay a fine of $100.  Adair then petitioned to the United States Supreme Court that the Erdman Act was unconstitutional and the decision of the District Court was repugnant to the Fifth Amendment and his right to due process of law.

Issues: 

Does the Erdman Act of 1989 prohibit employees and employers from having a contractual agreement with each other? This is a right protected by the Fifth Amendment “which prevents government from depriving an individual of liberty or property without due process of law”

Holding:

The United States Supreme Court held that the Erdman Act of 1989 was unconstitutional, and reversed Adair’s conviction by the District Court.

Reasoning:

The court found that the Erdman Act was repugnant of an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to enter into contracts for the sale of one’s labor, and for the purchase of someone else’s labor.  Adair has a right to serve his employer in the best way possible, as long it does not harm the greater population. The right of Adair to specify the terms of Coppage’s employment, and the right of Coppage to decide whether or not to become an employee of Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company are inherent to the Fifth Amendment.

The court also found, that Congress does not have the authority to pass such laws.  They do not have the authority “to compel any person to accept or retain the personal services of another, or to compel any person, against his will, to perform personal services for another”.  Employers have a right to discharge an employee whenever they see fit, and likewise, employees have a right to quit a job whenever they so choose. 

Impact:

Erdman Act was deemed unconstitutional because it violated DPC of the 5^th amendment rights to protect persons rights to enter into contracts.

Yellow dog-contacts were later deemed illegal in 1932

Chicago  vs. Morales

527 U.S. 41 (1999)

U.S. = United States Supreme Court Reporter

Courts: Illinois Supreme Court (overturned)

US Supreme Court (affirmed and found the Ordinance unconstitutional)

Facts Summary:

Chicago= Defendant, petitioner

Morales = Plaintiff, respondent

Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibits “criminal street gang members” from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance.

In 1993, Jesus Morales was arrested and found guilty under the ordinance for loitering in a Chicago neighborhood after he ignored police orders to disperse from that area.  After Morales challenged his arrest, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated his due process of law in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal freedoms.    

Procedure:

Morales challenged the ordinance by stating that it covered a large amount of additional activity beyond what should normally be interpreted as loitering, and therefore is unconstitutional.  A writ or certiorari was then filed and the case was taken to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The State Supreme court found that the ordinance was too vague because it did not specify limits on the discretion of police officers to determine what actions constituted loitering.  The case was argued in the United States Supreme Court where it was decided that the Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance was unconstitutional. 

Issues: 

Does Chicago’s Gang Ordinance, which prohibits “criminal street gang members” from loitering in public places, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Holding:

Yes.  The United States Supreme Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal. 

Reasoning:

Order to disperse takes place before the officer actually knows whether or not the prohibited conduct has occurred and is an unjustifiable impairment of liberty, if the loiterer is harmless and innocent.  The wording of this ordinance encourages discriminatory enforcement. The Ordinance is unconstitutional because if lacks sufficient standards to guide law enforcement officers. 

Impact:

Ordinance was deemed unconstitutional

Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Goodman (1927)

275 U.S. 66 (1927)

U.S. = United States Supreme Court Reporter

Courts: Supreme Court (Reversed decision of lower courts)

Facts Summary:

Baltimore & Ohio R.R. = Respondent

Goodman = Petitioner

Nathan Goodman was in a car accident involving a train going less than 60mph while he went through a railroad crossing. Nathan’s view was obstructed. Goodman’s widow sued the RR and won.

Goodman won the original trial were the RR claimed cause of death was negligence of Goodman.

Procedure:

Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Company appealed the decision. The Supreme Court reversed this decision.

Issues: 

Can a party win in court on a negligence claim after evidence shows that the party had failed to carry out any reasonable precautions to protect them from an apparent risk?

Should the finder of the facts be the judge of negligence in a case where that situation can be determined by a standard of conduct set by the courts?

Holding:

No. This is based on negligence and failure to take necessary precautions to protect from obvious risk. Court ruled Goodman was negligent for not taking extra precautions.

Reasoning:

If a person relies on hearing or paying attention to a signal only then proceeding to go through a railroad crossing this person is negligent. Goodman was familiar with the crossing. Court said he should have exited his truck and looked. Negligence case should be based on a standard of conduct.

Impact:

Expanded decision based on contributory negligence. Conduct fell below standards established by law for self protection.

United States vs. Carroll Towing Co.

 159 F.2d 169 (1947)

Courts: Eastern Federal District Court

2^nd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals

Facts Summary:

United States = Respondent

Carroll Towing Co. = Petitioner

In NY harbor many barges broke away from their moorings and collided with a tanker. One barge sank that was loaded with flour owned by the US. The tug boat company was removing a barge from the tier when the barges broke free. When the collision took place Anna C. (a barge attendant) was contractually obligated to be on board.

Procedure:

The case was appealed from the Eastern Federal District Court to the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The District Court held Conners Marine Company (owner of the sunken barge) containing cargo of flour owned by the US liable for damage and lost cargo. Conners Company appealed.

Issues: 

When multiple negligent parties are involved how is liability assessed and apportioned?

Holding:

The existing Admiralty Laws were not suited for multiple party liabilities, hence the creation of the Hand Rule.  The Carroll Towing Company was one of multiple parties liable for negligence and should not be required to bare the entire burden for paying damages.  Damages were divided based on “collision damages” and “sinking damages.”  With respect to the collision damages, half of the liability was placed on Carroll. The other half of the collision damages liability was assigned to Grace Lines who contracted the tugboat and employed the harbormaster.  The sinking damages were divided in thirds and assigned to three parties: Carroll Towing, Grace Line, and Conners Marine Company who owned the barge Anna C. and employed the barge attendant.  

Reasoning:

Judge Learned Hand found that there were two separate acts, the collision and the sinking, which led him to assign liability accordingly.  The deck hand and harbormaster onboard the Carroll were liable for collision damage. If the barge attendant been aboard they would have been able to pump out the water and keep the barge afloat.  The Carroll had the pump capacity to do so.  To simplify Judge Hand created an algebraic rule (Hand’s Rule) to determine negligence:

        P = probability of injury

        L = cost of injury

        B = cost of precaution

Liability exists when B < PL but no liability when B ≥ PL. 

Impact:

Judge Hand’s creation of the Hand Rule is documented as the first time cost-benefit analysis was used for determining negligence and assigning liability.  Hand’s Rule used an algebraic equation to find an efficient means of tort/liability resolution.

In Re Debs

158 U.S. 564 (1895)

Courts: United States Circuit Court (found Debs guilty)

Supreme Court (Affirmed)

Facts Summary:

US = plaintiff, Respondent

Debs =Defendant, Petitioner

Eugene V. Debs and the American Railway Union organized a strike in the Chicago area because of the poor pay, layoffs and work conditions faced by railroad workers. Chicago was the largest railway hub.

US Attorney General Richard Olney was pressing President Grover Cleveland to take military action.

Procedure:

Olney filed two complaints to the US Circuit Court and the US District Court. The complaint requested and injunction telling American Railway Union to not interfere with rail traffic or US Mail (would force the strike to stop). The injunction was so broad that it would no longer be possible to strike against the RR. Federal troops were sent to Chicago to stop the strike however this turned peaceful protest into mobs and riots. Debs refused to stop the riots and was convicted of contempt. Debs appealed to the supreme court.

Issues: 

Does the federal government have the power to end a strike in the interest of interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails?

        Do federal courts have the power to issue an injunction in support of interstate commerce and delivery of the mails?

Holding:

Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of contempt by Debs.

Reasoning:

Court ruled in favor of the government having the right to order injunction to protect interstate commerce. The Sherman Anti-trust act was sited stating that all contracts and trusts in the restraint of trade are illegal. The refusal to move railroad cars and interference with interstate commerce was covered in the act. The federal government has the power to guarantee interstate commerce.

Impact:

Competition between labor and capital

The government infringed on citizens rights to strike to regulate interstate commerce

Berkemer vs. McCarty

468 US 420 (1984)

 U.S. = United States Supreme Court Reporter

Courts: Ohio Trial Court (found guilty)

Franklin County Court of Appeals (affirmed)

Ohio Supreme Court (appeal dismissed)

Habeas Corpus dismissed by Southern District of Ohio

Sixth Circuit Court reversed the writ of Habeas Corpus

Supreme Court-       

Facts Summary:

McCarty = Respondent

Berkemer = Petitioner

McCarty was weaving through traffic and failed a field sobriety test. McCarty told the officers that he had very little to drink but had smoked marijuana. He was never told he was in custody or read his Miranda rights.

Procedure:

Ohio Trial Court (found guilty)

Franklin County Court of Appeals (affirmed)

Ohio Supreme Court (appeal dismissed)

Habeas Corpus dismissed by Southern District of Ohio

Sixth Circuit Court reversed the writ of Habeas Corpus

Case was then taken to the US Supreme Court

Issues: 

The following issues were answered by the US Supreme Court in the Berkemer vs McCarty case:

Do the Miranda warnings apply and protect a person subjected to custodial interrogation?

Is roadside questioning from a routine traffic stop custodial interrogation?

Were the post arrest statements of McCarty considered “harmless error”? Harmless error is when you argue that there was an error of law made during a trial and led to the wrong outcome.

Holding:

McCarty was not read his Miranda rights which goes against the 5^th amendment. Road side questioning is not considered custodial interrogation.

Reasoning:

Court ruled in favor of the government having the right to order injunction to protect interstate commerce. The Sherman Anti-trust act was sited stating that all contracts and trusts in the restraint of trade are illegal. The refusal to move railroad cars and interference with interstate commerce was covered in the act. The federal government has the power to guarantee interstate commerce.

Impact:

Procedure for roadside stops is outlined

Gregorie vs. Alpine Meadows Ski Resort

(2009)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (affirmed)

Facts Summary:

Alpine Meadows Ski Corp= Defendant, Appellee

Gregorie = Plaintiff, Appelant

Gregorie fell to her death while hiking to a double black diamond slope at the ski resort. Before skiing she signed a contract stating that she would never sued and assumed the risk.

Procedure:

Gregorie’s parents sued the ski resort, bring wrongful death claims for premises liability, misrepresentation of risk, negligence, breach of contract, and rescission of contract. Case was heard by the California Eastern District Court and appealed to the 9^th circuit of the US Court of Appeals.

Issues: 

Did Alpine Meadows Ski Resort give an effective notice of a cliff below the High Beaver Traverse?

Should there have been more effective protective equipment placed along the High Beaver Traverse?

Does the wavier Jessica signed protect Alpine Meadows from this type of negligence?

Holding:

Resort was release from negligence because the waiver was valid and enforceable. The signs/symbols marked the path and put liability on Jessica. The risks of downhill sports are well documented and known and are specific.

Reasoning:

Court ruled in favor of the government having the right to order injunction to protect interstate commerce. The Sherman Anti-trust act was sited stating that all contracts and trusts in the restraint of trade are illegal. The refusal to move railroad cars and interference with interstate commerce was covered in the act. The federal government has the power to guarantee interstate commerce.

Impact:

Enforced the power of waivers

Luther v. Borden

48 U.S. 1 (1849)

U.S. = United States Supreme Court Reporter

Courts: Rhode Island Circuit Court (ruled in favor of defendants)

        Supreme Court (Affirmed)

Facts Summary:

Luther= Plaintiff, Appellant

Borden = Defendants, Appellee

Rhode Island attempted to create a new constitution (previously ruled by Royal Charter). The Royal Charter did not recognize the new constitution and declared martial law. Officers entered Luther’s house and arrested him. Luther was also a citizen of Massachusetts and brought at claim of trespass against the officers (Borden)

Procedure:

The district court ruled in favor of the defendants because the state was under martial law.

Issues: 

1.  Did the officers trespass when they entered the home of Martin Luther?

2.  Do the courts of the United States have to power to determine whether the government of a State has been lawfully established and therefore must adhere to the decisions of the State courts regarding the matter?

3.  Under Article IV, Section , which provides for a republican form of government in each state, is the preexisting government constitutional?

Holding:

Supreme Court Affirmed

Reasoning:

The state of Rhode Island was still under the governance of the Royal Charter at the time of the trespass and also under martial law. It is not within federal courts power to determine whether a state government has been lawfully established.

Impact:

Determined the role of the courts during a time the constitution of a state was questioned.