Attorneys Fredrick E Charles and Dennis G Charles possess preeminent and distinguished legal reputations as highly skilled, experienced and accomplished trial attorneys. The attorneys at Charles Law Offices are thorough, meticulous, and masterful in their pretrial investigation, preparation, and strategy; pleading and motion practice; direct and cross-examination of expert and lay witnesses; oral argument; presentation and rebuttal of relevant scientific, medical, and other forensic evidence; review and application of relevant state and federal laws and regulations; preservation of the record for possible appellate review; and use of advanced legal skills and cutting edge persuasion techniques required to win your mass transit accident case and get you the financial compensation you deserve.

The modes of transportation used in our mass transit systems — planes, trains, streetcars, subways, buses, taxis, boats, ferries, etc.  —  are what is known as “common carriers.” Our federal and state courts have held that a common carrier owes its passengers the highest degree of care and diligence and the “strictest vigilance” (a) in carrying them to their destination; (b) in setting them down at the terminus of their journey; (c) in enabling them to alight safely; and (d) in maintaining a safe premises. Source: Lebanon Coach Co. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co.,  450 Pa. Super. 1 (1996); Cestaric v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 139 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1943).

In  Calhoon v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 128 Pa. Super 582 (1937) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the common carrier’s duty of care extends to all of the common carrier’s premises from the time a passenger leaves the public highway and enters the premises occupied by a carrier, until he leaves the carrier’s premises for the public highway. The carrier is bound to provide safe means of passage between the public highway and the carrier’s means of transportation. This duty of care and rule of law applies to ferries, railroads, street railways, taxicabs, buses and airplanes. Toombs v. Manning, 835 F.2d. 453 (3d Cir. 1987). Under Pennsylvania law, a common carrier’s duty of exercising the highest degree of care is violated by negligence per se arising from violation of a government safety regulation.

Despite this duty of care owed to passengers by  mass transit common carriers, our courts have held that common carriers are not insurers of their passengers’ safety. In order to recover money damages for injuries arising from the relationship with a defendant common carrier,  passengers-plaintiffs still must demonstrate that the injuries are attributable to the common carrier’s negligence. Allen v. American Airlines, Inc., 301 F.Supp.2d 370 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

Federal statutes and treaties for air, maritime and rail transport may alter the standard of care,  the damages recoverable, and the statute of limitations involved in mass transit accidents. These federal statutes and treaties preempt state law when applicable.

The Federal Aviation Act  of 1958 (“FAA”) “establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of air safety, generally, thus preempting the entire field from state and territorial regulation.” Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363, 367 (3d Cir.1999). A Plaintiff must base his negligence claim upon a federal standard of care, as prescribed within the FAA.   14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a) provides, “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”  [I]n determining the standards of care in an aviation negligence action, a court must refer not only to specific regulations but also to the overall concept that aircraft may not be operated in a careless or reckless manner.  In addition to FAA regulations,  specific federal legislation and treaties may be applicable and affect an injured party’s right of recourse and/or damages recoverable against the defendant in an aviation accident.  Some examples of such federal legislation and treaties are the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA),  49 U.S.C. §40101; the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C. §40105; the Montreal Convention of 1999 (effective 2003); the Death On The High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C. §761-767; the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 171 (FTCA/governmental liability issues); and  the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.§§1602-1611.

Did you know? Attorney Dennis G. Charles of Charles Law Offices is a licensed private pilot and instrument-trained aviator. Attorney Charles is knowledgeable and proficient in  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, rules  and procedures for General Aviation, sport pilots and instructors appearing in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). He is an aircraft owner and member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association (MAPA).

In any mass transit accident involving a bus, investigation is critical. Although a bus accident may appear to be simple on its face, in reality it may raise multiple components or issues which need investigation including, without limitation:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine and pipeline safety – investigates school bus cases and other bus cases involving catastrophic injuries. The NTSB report, however, is NOT admissible evidence in a civil action for damages as a result of the Independent Safety Board Act, 49 U.S.C. §1154(b).

Federal preemption of state laws is a prominent issue in railroad litigation. Often times, the courts find that state law claims applying federal standards are not preempted.  For example, the Locomotive Inspect Act (LIA), 49 U.S.C. §20701, mandates that locomotives and their parts to be kept “in proper condition and safe to operate without unnecessary danger of personal injury.”  The Third Circuit has recently ruled that the Locomotive Inspect Act (LIA) does not preempt a railroad’s state law claims where federal standards of care apply.  In contrast, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the Locomotive Inspect Act (LIA) occupies the field of locomotive design and construction and therefore preempts state law. Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., 132 S.Ct.  1261 (2012).  Another federal statute that is a source of preemption issues — particularly in the areas of accident litigation, safety regulation cases,  and water damage litigation —  is the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. §20101, which was enacted “to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents.”

Did you know? In 2005, in a case argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals involving a mass transit train crash fatality, Charles Law Offices successfully persuaded the Court that crashes caused by obstructed site lines should be exempted from the Federal preemption mandates and, in so doing, established legal precedent in the Third Circuit that subsequently was followed in other circuits of the federal court system throughout the United States.

Mass transit accident cases typically involve scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson. Therefore, the court usually requires expert testimony to establish the duty and standard of care required of the common carrier, and how the common carrier’s departure from that duty and standard of care caused the victim’s injuries and damages.

Rule 702 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence defines an “expert” as “a witness qualified… by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” and permits such individual to testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise. The attorneys at Charles Law Offices use some of the nation’s finest experts in the fields of aviation and aeronautics, science and engineering, accident reconstruction, medicine, physics, bio-mechanics, pharmacology, toxicology, psychiatry, psychology, and other forensic disciplines in successfully representing injured plaintiffs in personal injury and mass transit accident  litigation.

With nearly  40 years of trial experience, legal training and success in handling all types of personal injury lawsuits, Attorneys Fredrick E. Charles and Dennis G. Charles are second to none when it comes to guarding your legal rights and winning the money damages you deserve. Our record of big trial victories, large verdicts,  and out-of-court settlements  speaks for itself.  We know how to stand up to large  common carriers and large  corporations  to get you the  compensation that you are legally entitled to for the harm you have suffered.

Contact us for a free legal consultation at 1-610-437-7064  or simply fill out  the form appearing in the top right corner of this page. There’s no fee when you call and no obligation to use our services. We’re here 24/7 to get you the legal help you require!

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with a lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the attorneys at Charles Law Offices.