## Facts

- Rose Frederick was a fare-paying passenger on a Detroit city bus operated by the City of Detroit Department of Street Railways (DSR).
- Frederick alleged the bus’s rubber floor was worn, torn, and had accumulated dirt.
- She also alleged the bus lacked a handrail or similar support for passengers exiting to the street.
- As Frederick stepped down to alight, she slipped and fell to the street, suffering injuries.
- Frederick sued DSR for negligence, alleging the unsafe floor condition and absence of a railing breached the carrier’s heightened duty to passengers.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions correctly stated the duty of care owed by a common carrier to its passengers.
2. Whether describing the carrier as “not an insurer” and stating it owes a “higher degree of care,” without using the “highest degree of care consistent with practical operation” formulation, misled the jury and required a new trial.
3. Whether any imprecision in the instructions, considered as a whole, caused prejudicial error warranting reversal.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the defense verdict and judgment for the City/DSR.
- The Court held that although parts of the instruction were “open to some question” in phrasing, the charge as a whole sufficiently communicated that DSR owed passengers a heightened duty of care and could be liable for negligence.
- The Court concluded the plaintiff did not show the challenged wording likely misled the jury or affected the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- A common carrier is not an insurer of passenger safety and is liable only for negligence.
- A common carrier owes passengers a heightened duty of care, often stated as the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its business.
- Appellate review evaluates jury instructions as a whole; isolated imperfections do not require reversal unless they likely misled the jury and resulted in prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the verdict for the municipal bus operator because the jury instructions, considered in their entirety, adequately conveyed the carrier’s heightened negligence duty despite imperfect phrasing, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudicial instructional error.


Frederick v. City of Detroit, Dep’t of St. Ry., 370 Mich. 425, 121 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. 1963)