I badly broke my ankle on the subway. I was walking into a subway car when I slipped and fell on water on the floor of the subway car. It was raining that day, but doesn’t the Transit have an obligation to keep subway cars clear for passengers?
You might be thinking of a time when there used to be something called a “common carrier” rule. Up until recently, a common carrier, like the subway, had a high degree of care. So that a bus, or a train, or subway had an extremely high burden for safety of passengers.
However, that rule changed in 1998. Bethel v New York City Transit Authority, 92 NY2d 348, 681 NYS2d 201 (1998). After that case, a common carrier must exercise reasonable care. That means that the subway does not have an obligation to absolutely insure the safety of its passengers.
Therefore, a court would examine your case like any other slip and fall case. The analysis would start with notice. Did the subway have notice of the condition? Since you said it was raining at the time of your accident, you can infer that the subway had notice of the slippery condition.
However, that is only the first consideration. After you establish notice, you must prove that the subway had a reasonable opportunity to clear the slippery condition. There is nothing in your question that indicates the subway would have had any opportunity to clear the water from the subway car. As stated in one similar case to yours, it would be unreasonable to expect the defendant to constantly clean the floor of its buses during an ongoing storm. Spooner v New York City Transit Authority, 298 A.D.2d 575, 750 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2d Dept. 2002).
You can draw a similar conclusion for a subway car. It would be unreasonable for the subway system to constantly clean subway cars during an ongoing storm. Therefore, you do not have a claim against the subway.
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.