In the wake of the horrifying SEPTA bus accident last Friday, which saw a Route 14 bus collide into the rear of a Route 1 bus on Roosevelt Boulevard, the public is left to grapple with the devastating human cost: one woman tragically lost her life, the driver of the bus is critically injured, and over a dozen other individuals sustained injuries. With investigations still ongoing, a broader conversation is emerging about the potential legal consequences of such tragic occurrences.
The accident occurred at approximately 12:10 p.m. when the Route 14 bus struck the back of a Route 1 bus, causing the latter's windshield to shatter and leading to extensive damage that put both buses out of service. This distressing incident has ignited significant debate about safety standards on public transportation and how potential legal recourse might play out.
The doctrine of negligence, a core principle in tort law, will likely play a significant role in establishing liability. Negligence refers to a party's failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282). Accordingly, the investigation will likely center on whether the Route 14 bus driver failed to maintain a safe distance or was otherwise inattentive, leading to the collision.
An analogous case, "Green v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc." (448 A.2d 800, 803, 209 N.J. Super. 561 (1982)), ruled that bus drivers, akin to all drivers, have an obligation to maintain a safe distance from other vehicles on the road. If they fail to do so, the court may deem it as negligence per se.
Moreover, the doctrine of vicarious liability could potentially hold SEPTA, the bus company, accountable for the actions of its employees carried out during their employment, even if the employer was not personally negligent (Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(1)). If the Route 14 bus driver is found negligent, SEPTA could face liability.
However, there are more layers to this incident. A statement by passenger Robert West Jr. suggests that the Route 1 bus passed its designated stop but then halted at the following corner to let off a passenger. This new dimension could introduce the principle of contributory negligence or comparative negligence, depending on the jurisdiction, which considers whether the harmed party's negligence contributed to their injuries, possibly reducing or even negating their potential recovery (Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 3). If the Route 1 bus driver's sudden stop can be considered negligent, these principles might come into play.
Additionally, if it turns out that SEPTA had systemic issues that contributed to the accident, this could result in liability under the principles of negligent entrustment or negligent supervision (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 308, 317). Such an implication would require evidence of SEPTA's failure to properly train drivers, maintain vehicles, or manage a history of similar accidents.
While these legal analyses shed some light on potential liability, the ultimate determinations will depend on the results of the ongoing investigation. With a community in mourning and a public demanding answers, the importance of understanding these legal ramifications cannot be understated.
