Opinion
39378.
DECIDED APRIL 11, 1962.
Action for damages. Savannah City Court. Before Judge Alexander.
Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams, Levy McAlpin, Kirk McAlpin, Frank W. Seiler, Walter C. Hartridge, II, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce, Ranitz Lee, John F. M. Rantiz, Jr., F. Robert Raley, contra.
A common carrier has a duty to use extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers from known or reasonably observable danger from outside sources, and the failure to warn a passenger of such danger may amount to negligence.
DECIDED APRIL 11, 1962.
The petition of plaintiff (defendant in error) for damages for personal injuries alleged: The defendant (plaintiff in error) is a common carrier of passengers for hire. At a certain time plaintiff boarded a bus of defendant as a passenger. The driver of the bus was the servant and agent of the defendant. At one of the stops made by the bus, the driver "engaged in a controversy and/or altercation with a group of persons at the bus stop. Said persons became inflamed by the abusive language and actions used toward them by said bus driver, whereupon one of said passengers threw a stone or some like object at said bus, striking and breaking the window next to which petitioner was sitting, throwing glass into petitioner's left eye and injuring same. . ." The driver "was in a position to observe what was happening, in the exercise of the care imposed upon him should have observed what was happening, and should have given his passengers warning of the impending danger." The petitioner's injury and damage was due solely and proximately to the defendant and driver's negligence in "engaging in an altercation with third persons, inflaming them to acts of violence"; in "failing to observe that an act of violence was about to be committed and giving petitioner warning of the pending danger"; and "in failing to exercise extraordinary care in protecting petitioner from injury."
The defendant assigns error on the trial court's overruling of its general demurrer to the petition.
A common carrier has a duty to use extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers from known or reasonably observable danger from outside sources. This duty of extraordinary care is owed towards passengers of a bus from the time they board the bus, and not just when the bus is in motion. Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton, 103 Ga. App. 688, 690 ( 120 S.E.2d 663). The failure to warn a passenger of such danger may amount to negligence. Georgia R. c. Co. v. Murphy, 28 Ga. App. 173 ( 110 S.E. 680); Yellow Cab Co. v. Carmichael, 33 Ga. App. 364, 368 ( 126 S.E. 269), annotated in 42 ALR 174; 10 Am.Jur. 256, § 1439.
The allegation that the bus driver "was in a position to observe what was happening, in the exercise of the care imposed upon him should have observed what was happening, and should have given his passengers warning of the impending danger," is a general allegation of negligence which is good as against a general demurrer. Keenan Welding Supplies Co. v. Bronner, 100 Ga. App. 400 ( 111 S.E.2d 140). Whether a bus driver, charged with the duty of extraordinary care, neglected a duty to warn a passenger injured by the act of a third person at the bus stop, is a question that must be decided by a jury from the evidence before them.
The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.