Court Opinion

ID: 9694356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:38:37.105193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:00.000948
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, and I join in Judge Sehwelb’s opinion for the court. I write separately, however, to emphasize that Judge Schwelb’s opinion should not be read as imposing on a common carrier a standard of care different from or greater than the duty that rests on any other defendant in a negligence case. On the contrary, “the cases all hold that a common carrier is subject to essentially the same standard as any other alleged tortfeasor, i.e., an obligation to exercise due care.” Sebastian v. District of Columbia, 636 A.2d 958, 962 (D.C.1994); accord, e.g., McKethean v. WMATA 588 A.2d 708, 712 (D.C.1991) (carrier “owes a duty of reasonable care to its passengers” (citations omitted)). What is “reasonable” may vary from case to case, depending on the facts, but the standard of care does not change.
In addition, if it were necessary to decide the appeal, I would expressly affirm the trial court’s ruling that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to this ease because Ms. Jeanty failed to present sufficient evi*181dence to raise a res ipsa issue. See footnote 10 of Judge Schwelb’s opinion, ante at 177. In light of the other evidence, however, I agree with Judge Schwelb that we need not address the point.
Finally, I specifically endorse the views expressed in the next-to-last paragraph of footnote 14 of Judge Schwelb’s opinion.