MARISOL ARTIGAS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed summary judgment for bus operator where plaintiff's fall while boarding was indistinguishable from Miami Transit Co. v. Ford and no violation of internal procedures occurred.
A bus operator owes no duty beyond the standard of care established in Miami Transit Co. v. Ford when a passenger falls while boarding, and internal operating procedures do not establish the applicable standard of care.
[1] Internal operating procedures of a common carrier do not establish or fix the standard of care owed to passengers, though they may be considered as evidence of the approp…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant fell after boarding a bus while en route to her seat. The facts were materially indistinguishable from those in Miami Transit Co. v. Ford.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Carrier Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant fell after boarding a bus, while on her way to her seat. As the facts of the present case are indistinguishable in any material sense from those in Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 159 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), the summary judgment in favor of appellee is affirmed. Although appellant relies in part on statements by the bus driver in order to suggest a violation of the procedures outlined in the bus operator’s manual, the text of the manual itself indicates that on the present record no violation of internal procedures occurred.1
Affirmed.
. The manual would not in any event fix the standard of care. See Steinberg v. Lomenick, 531 So. 2d 199, 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). That is so in part because of the public policy in favor of encouraging the voluntary setting of standards higher than those customarily employed in the community. Id. at 201 (Baskin, J., concurring). Where there is a factual dispute about the applicable standard of care, internal procedures can be considered as some evidence of what the appropriate standard is. Id. at 200-01. In the present case, under the parameters already established by the decisional law, there is no dispute on the appropriate standard of care, and evidence of internal procedures is therefore immaterial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Arnulfo Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…la. 3d DCA 1985); see also Steinberg, 531 So. 2d at 200. This is necessary because of the public policy in favor of encouraging the voluntary setting of standards higher than those customarily employed in the community. Artigas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 739, 740 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Steinberg, 531 So. 2d at 201 (Baskin, J., concurring)). Accordingly, if the plaintiffs decide to introduce the training film, we direct the trial judge, upon timely request of counsel, to issue a cautionary instr…
-
Peterson v. Cent. Fla. Reg'l Transp., 769 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ver not to proceed into traffic until all passengers were seated safely. The bus driver was trained not to set the bus in motion until all passengers were seated or holding handrails, under such conditions. Compare Artigas v. Allstate Insurance Co., 541 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The argument was made that the bus driver did not violate his training instructions because the “not starting the bus until passengers were seated” rule only applied to elderly or disabled passengers. But a construction of the r…1 / 2
-
Melendez v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Transit, 217 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Artigas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 739, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 159 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Peterson v. Cent. Fla. Reg’l Transp., 769 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steinberg v. Lomenick, 531 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 159 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)