Courts Asked: Who Protects, Who Pays?

Nearly five years ago, Carmen Lopez and several family members say they were riding a Southern California Rapid Transit District bus along Venice Boulevard in Southwest Los Angeles when they found themselves caught in the midst of an escalating argument between other passengers.

As angry words turned to violence, eight or nine riders began fighting in the aisles. In the melee, Lopez--then pregnant--says she was struck by a skateboard. Her mother was hit in the face. Lopez’s 5-year-old daughter, sister and brother-in-law also suffered bruises.

Lopez filed a lawsuit against the RTD, contending that the bus driver did nothing to stop the fight or seek help, and instead merely continued on her route. When the bus arrived at its next scheduled stop, terrified passengers fled and the Lopez family went to a hospital for treatment.

Repercussions from that 1980 incident have led to the California Supreme Court, where a lawyer for Lopez argued last week that she has a right to sue the RTD, and the RTD countered with an argument that it might face bankruptcy if passengers who are assaulted on buses are allowed to pursue their claims in courts.

In the past, most such suits have been dismissed because courts have held either that public transit agencies are immune from damages or do not have a duty to prevent assaults, said Suzanne Gifford, the RTD’s assistant general counsel.

But if the Lopez case goes against the RTD, it could open the door to a flood of similar claims, said Gifford, who said the RTD disputes Lopez’s version of the assault.

“The question is whether a public bus company has a duty to provide crime-fighting services on the bus, given the fact that a public entity has limited resources and somebody has to pay for it in the end,” said Marc Poster, an attorney who argued the RTD’s position to the Supreme Court.

“If a court says they have to provide dollars for (additional security) . . . that may mean (bus) service will go down or rates will go up,” Poster added.

On the other hand, Lopez’s attorney, Steven Mazza, argued that an armed guard on every bus is not necessary. But, he said, “the company has a duty to provide safe carriage for its riders, and (the RTD) breached that duty (in the Lopez case) when the bus driver did nothing.”

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge had dismissed the Lopez lawsuit in 1983, but an appeal court panel, headed by Justice Leon Thompson, ruled last year that the RTD has a duty to protect its passengers.

Thompson suggested that the district consider providing alarm lights, emergency radios, reserved seating for vulnerable passengers and a tougher boarding policy, among other things.

RTD appealed the panel’s ruling to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether the Lopez case should be allowed to go to trial.

It was unclear whether the driver in the Lopez case had emergency equipment. But RTD officials say that drivers now are equipped with radios and alarms. And they said surveillance cameras are in use on some of their 2,000 buses.

In arguing the RTD’s case, Poster suggested that the RTD may even have to consider cutting some bus service to high-crime areas in order to curb violence. But an RTD spokesman said the lawyer was not speaking for the five-county transit agency, adding that the RTD is legally bound to provide bus service throughout the region.