Lopez

I would adopt as my own the very fine opinion of Justice Earl Johnson in the Court of Appeal. It follows: † This case presents a difficult and important issue. Because the Southern California Rapid Transit District [hereafter RTD] is a public corporation, must the victims of criminal violence on board its buses be denied recovery for the RTD's breach of duty to "use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage"? (Civ. Code, § 2100 ) [I would] hold RTD is not immunized from fulfilling the same duty which would be imposed on a private company operating those same buses. *Page 797 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint following the sustaining of defendant's demurrer without leave to amend. For purposes of appeal we accept as true the properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint. ( Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741 , 746 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ].) Furthermore, the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452 ; King v. Central Bank (1977) 18 Cal.3d 840 , 843 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 782 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 783 OPINION The issue presented in this case is whether the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD), a public corporation, has a duty to protect passengers aboard its buses from assaults by fellow passengers. We conclude that RTD does owe such a duty to its passengers and that RTD is not immune from liability under the facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. *Page 784 We therefore hold that the trial court erred in sustaining RTD's demurrer, and reverse the judgment of dismissal. I. Plaintiffs Carmen and Carla Lopez, Yolanda and Jose de Dios and Zenaida Arce brought this action against RTD for injuries they received when a fight broke out among passengers on board an RTD bus. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleges the following facts which, for purposes of this appeal, are deemed admitted. ( Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741 , 746 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12…

The issue presented in this case is whether the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD), a public corporation, has a duty to protect passengers aboard its buses from assaults by fellow passengers. We conclude that RTD does owe such a duty to its passengers and that RTD is not immune from liability under the facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in sustaining RTD’s demurrer, and reverse the judgment of dismissal.

I.

Plaintiffs Carmen and Carla Lopez, Yolanda and Jose de Dios and Zenaida Arce brought this action against RTD for injuries they received when a fight broke out among passengers on board an RTD bus. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges the following facts which, for purposes of this appeal, are deemed admitted. (Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 746 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ].)

RTD is a public corporation engaged as a common carrier in the business of transporting members of the general public. While plaintiffs were on board an RTD bus as fare-paying passengers, a group of juveniles began harassing other passengers and a “violent argument” ensued. The…