## Facts

- Oscar Jones alleged he was injured while boarding a Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) bus.
- Jones testified that after he entered the bus and was climbing the stairs toward the seating platform, the bus pulled out and then stopped suddenly before he reached the platform.
- Jones testified the bus doors were not closed at the time of the incident and that he injured his arm.
- PAT disputed that the incident occurred and argued that, even if it did, the driver was not negligent.
- A jury returned a verdict for PAT; the trial court denied the Joneses’ post-trial motions and entered judgment for PAT.
- The Joneses appealed, challenging only the trial court’s jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct that a common carrier owes passengers the “highest degree of care” consistent with the practical operation of its business.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct that moving the bus before the doors were closed could be considered by the jury as evidence of negligence and causation.
3. Whether the jury charge, considered as a whole, adequately stated the governing law or instead constituted prejudicial instructional error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania vacated the judgment for PAT and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the duty instruction was deficient because it did not clearly convey that PAT, as a common carrier, owed passengers the highest degree of care.
- The court held the trial court improperly refused an instruction permitting the jury to consider whether moving the bus with doors open could support findings of negligence and proximate cause.
- Because the standard of care and submission of supported negligence theories to the jury were fundamental to the case, the instructional errors warranted a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania, a common carrier owes its passengers the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its business.
- Jury instructions must clearly and accurately state the applicable standard of care; an ambiguous formulation that does not communicate the heightened common-carrier duty can be reversible error.
- Where evidence supports a specific negligence theory and a related causation inference, the trial court generally must allow the jury to consider it through appropriate instructions.
- Proximate cause is ordinarily a question for the jury, not to be removed from consideration by limiting instructions that foreclose a supported theory.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed on the heightened duty owed by a common carrier and was not permitted to consider a supported theory that the bus moved before its doors closed, bearing on negligence and causation.


Jones v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 136 Pa. Commw. 445, 583 A.2d 512 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990)