In Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit District, ordered published November 26, 2025, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the defendant district. The plaintiff fell over while standing up in a moving bus. The footage taken by the video system on the bus showed that the plaintiff had a plastic bag in one hand, had her phone to her ear, was leaning on the partition between passengers and driver, and was not holding onto a pole or stanchion; and that when the plaintiff fell, the bus did not jerk or move in an unexpected manner. The plaintiff sued the bus driver and district alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The complaint stated the claim against the district was asserted under Government Code section 815.2 and Vehicle Code section 17001. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds including lack of evidence the defendants were negligent. Plaintiff’s opposition papers included a declaration from a bus transportation safety expert, who opined that the standard of care for bus drivers is not to allow passengers to stand while the bus is in motion and seats are available, and that the bus driver should warn passengers to be seated or hold onto something before the bus moves from a bus stop. The expert opined the bus driver failed to give the passengers adequate warning, and failed to adequately check his mirrors regarding his passengers, before moving the bus. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that the video established that there was no evidence of defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff assumed the risk of ordinary movement of the bus.
The appellate court agreed that there was no evidence of negligence. It held that the trial court properly ruled that the expert’s opinion could not create a triable issue of fact. Because a public entity’s duty is based solely on statute, the issues on summary judgment were confined by the statutory ground for liability cited, Vehicle Code section 17001, and the factual allegations of how the defendants allegedly violated their duties under the statute. The gravamen of the complaint was that the driver drove in a negligent manner, rather than failure to warn or failure to check mirrors. The trial court therefore properly disregarded any factual issues raised by the expert’s opinion that the driver should have given a warning or checked his mirrors. Under section 17001, there was no dispute that the defendants were subject to a heightened duty of care as a common carrier. The court therefore agreed with the plaintiff that the assumption of risk doctrine does not apply to a passenger riding with a common carrier. This does not mean, however, that the defendants are liable for an injury caused by the ordinary movement of the bus. The bus driver’s duty requires him to exercise the vigilance of a very careful person, but such exercise cannot eliminate the bus’s ordinary movement by driving on the street. Since the video shows that the plaintiff fell because she was standing while the bus was in motion without holding onto anything, the bus was moving normally, and the plaintiff lost her balance, defendants carried their burden of showing that the plaintiff could not establish breach of duty. The trial court reasonably concluded the video offered the most reliable account of events and resolved any conflict in witness testimony over what happened. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that even if she was negligent, the attribution of fault between the parties is an issue for the jury. While a plaintiff’s negligence in itself is merely comparative fault that will not prevent recovery, the comparative fault doctrine presupposes there is independent negligence on both sides that is to be compared one to the other. Where the evidence shows the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injury, there is no fault to allocate. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applied, because the plaintiff could not show that the type of accident ordinarily would not occur absent a defendant’s negligence.
Leave a Reply