Opinion ID: 2823818
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Common Carrier Similarity

Text: Â¶30Â Â Â Â Â Â An innkeeperâs duty is consistent with the duty that has been imposed in another context in which we have recognized a special relationshipâcommon carriers and their passengers. See Whitlock, 744 P.2d at 58 (listing âcommon carrier/passengerâ as a special relationship for which courts have imposed a duty of care). A common carrier may be liable for injuries caused when it exercises its right to eject a passenger âat a time or place which is dangerous.â McCoy v. Millville Traction Co., 85 A. 358, 360 (N.J. 1912); accord Brown v. Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 1 N.W. 487, 490 (Iowa 1879) (explaining that whether a carrier exercised care during an ejection depends on factors such as the passengerâs physical condition, the time, the surroundings, and the weather); Commerce Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Livery Serv., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 50, 57 (Mass. 2008) (holding that a common carrier owes a duty of reasonable care to avoid discharging a passenger who it knew, or should have known, was intoxicated and likely to drive an automobile); Kelleher v. F.M.E. Auto Leasing Corp., 596 N.Y.S.2d 136, 137â39 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) (discussing the risks of ejecting an intoxicated passenger into the snow); Tex. Midland R.R. Co. v. Geraldon, 117 S.W. 1004, 1007 (Tex. App. 1909) (holding that a carrierâs right to eject a passenger âmust be exercised in a proper manner and at the proper time and placeâ), affâd, 128 S.W. 611 (Tex. 1910); Braggâs Admâx v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 67 S.E. 593, 595 (Va. 1910) (stating that a railroad company ejecting a drunk passenger must consider the weather conditions and the place of ejection, together with the passengerâs intoxicated condition). Â¶31Â Â Â Â Â Â âThe rules of law, as well as the dictates of humanity, require that the ejection shall occur at such place, and be conducted in such manner, as not unreasonably to expose the party to danger.â Brown, 1 N.W. at 490. A common carrier must exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the passenger and will be liable for negligence ânot only for injuries directly suffered in connection with such expulsion, but also for subsequent injuries proximately due thereto, such as an injury from other cars which the ejected passenger could not reasonably avoid, the probable consequences of improper exposure, and the like.â McCoy, 85 A. at 360. Furthermore, a common carrier cannot escape liability by focusing attention on the passengerâs intoxication, provided that âhis condition was known to the servants of the carrier, and the consequent injury resulting from such expulsion could have been reasonably anticipated.â Id. A common carrier has a duty âto care for its intoxicated passenger in a prudent manner, not to leave him in a worse position than when it took charge of him.â Kelleher, 596 N.Y.S.2d at 139. Â¶32Â Â Â Â Â Â By virtue of the special relationship between innkeeper and guest, we conclude that a hotel has a similar legal duty to exercise reasonable care toward its guests. To determine the existence and the contours of this duty in the context of a lawful eviction, we also evaluate the duty factors that we set forth in HealthONE.Â