Sanoh v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority et al.

Kadiatou Sanoh was searching her purse for change to cover a shortfall in her bus fare when a MARTA bus driver pulled away from the stop and then braked hard to avoid a car, throwing her forward into a railing and injuring her. She sued MARTA, but the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled that MARTA has no duty to give passengers time to sit down before departing, effectively deciding as a matter of law that MARTA had not breached its duty to its passengers. Sanoh asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to take up her case. The court denied her petition, meaning the Court of Appeals decision stands. Four Justices, including the Chief Justice, dissented, arguing the case raised an important and recurring question about how far a bus company's high legal duty to its riders extends that deserved full review.

The court did not rule on the merits; it simply denied the petition for certiorari, leaving the Court of Appeals of Georgia's decision that MARTA breached no duty as a matter of law to passengers still finding seats when a bus departs or stops abruptly.

The denial leaves in place a Court of Appeals rule that can end similar lawsuits against MARTA and other common carriers before a jury ever hears them, even though Georgia law demands carriers exercise an unusually high level of care toward passengers.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. Georgia law imposes on common carriers like MARTA a duty of 'extraordinary diligence,' a higher standard than ordinary care requiring the extreme caution a very prudent and thoughtful person would use, under O.C.G.A. § 46-9-132 and § 51-1-3.
2. Under longstanding Georgia tort law, whether a carrier breached that duty is normally a question for the jury, not the judge, unless the case is so plain and undisputable that reasonable people could not differ.
3. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals of Georgia's ruling in this case, and in its earlier MARTA v. Brown decision, mistakenly treated the breach question as settled as a matter of law by holding MARTA has no duty to let passengers find a seat before departing.
4. The dissent reasoned that a jury, not a judge, should decide whether a bus driver who accelerated and then braked hard while a passenger was still searching for change to pay her fare met the extraordinary diligence standard.
5. Because the dissenting Justices viewed this as an important and recurring legal question affecting many similar claims against MARTA, they would have granted review to clarify when, if ever, such cases can be resolved without a jury.

• MARTA bus injury
• common carrier duty
• extraordinary diligence
• certiorari denial
• jury question