You were standing in the aisle, holding a rail, walking toward a seat, or preparing to get off a SEPTA bus when the driver suddenly hit the brakes.
Maybe you were traveling along Roosevelt Boulevard, Bustleton Avenue, Frankford Avenue, or another busy route through Northeast Philadelphia. One moment you were riding normally. The next, you were thrown forward, knocked into a seat or pole, or sent to the floor.
Now you are injured and wondering whether what happened was simply part of riding a city bus or whether you may have a bus accident claim.
That distinction matters. SEPTA buses sometimes have to brake, accelerate, or react to traffic. Under Pennsylvania law, a passenger generally needs more than the fact that the bus stopped suddenly to establish negligence. The circumstances surrounding the movement can make the difference.
No. A sudden stop, by itself, does not automatically establish that SEPTA or its driver was negligent.
Passengers on buses can reasonably expect some movement as the vehicle starts, stops, turns, and responds to changing traffic. Pennsylvania courts have therefore developed what is often called the “jerk and jolt” doctrine for injuries caused by the movement of a common carrier such as a public bus.
The important question is not simply whether the bus stopped suddenly. The circumstances must support a finding that the stop, jerk, or jolt was sufficiently unusual or extraordinary to go beyond what a passenger could reasonably anticipate during an ordinary bus ride. The reason for the movement can also matter when determining whether the bus was operated negligently.
That distinction can become especially important when a passenger falls without the bus colliding with another vehicle or object.
There is no single fact that automatically proves a sudden stop was negligent.
Instead, the circumstances of the incident matter.
For example, questions can include:
Pennsylvania courts have explained that the effect of the movement on other passengers can help show that a jerk or stop was outside the ordinary movements expected on public transportation. The circumstances of the accident or the effect on the injured passenger may also provide evidence that the movement itself was unusual or extraordinary.
That is why simply describing a stop as “hard,” “sudden,” or “violent” may not resolve the issue. The surrounding evidence can be much more important.
A passenger may be injured while standing or moving through the bus.
You may have just paid your fare and started walking toward a seat. You may have been holding a pole while the bus was crowded. Or you may have stood up because your stop was approaching.
Falling while standing does not automatically mean that the bus was operated negligently.
Pennsylvania courts have recognized that an ordinary acceleration, stop, or movement can cause a standing passenger to lose balance without establishing negligence. A bus driver also is not necessarily required to wait for every passenger to be seated before moving the bus.
The analysis changes, however, when there is evidence that the movement itself was unusual or extraordinary.
For example, surveillance footage showing several passengers suddenly being thrown forward may tell a different story from footage showing ordinary bus movement while one passenger loses balance.
The fact that you were standing therefore matters, but it does not answer the claim by itself.
A sudden stop also has to be considered in context.
Suppose a car unexpectedly cuts directly in front of the bus and the SEPTA driver brakes sharply to avoid a collision. The fact that the stop was severe does not necessarily mean that the bus driver acted carelessly. Emergency braking may sometimes be a reasonable response to a danger created by someone else.
The circumstances may look different if evidence shows that the driver was following another vehicle too closely, traveling too fast for traffic conditions, distracted, or otherwise operating the bus in a way that helped create the emergency.
That makes the moments before the stop just as important as the stop itself.
Determining what happened may require looking at the bus’s movement, surrounding traffic, statements from witnesses, onboard recordings, and any other information showing why the driver applied the brakes.
It can be particularly important.
A passenger who is suddenly thrown to the floor may understandably remember the incident as violent. But determining whether the bus movement was legally significant can depend on objective evidence showing what actually happened inside and around the bus.
SEPTA buses are equipped with cameras, although what a particular camera captured and whether the footage remains available can depend on the circumstances. Video may show the driver’s actions, the movement of passengers, the bus’s surroundings, or events immediately before the sudden stop.
Recent Pennsylvania appellate decisions involving SEPTA illustrate how important video evidence can become when courts evaluate whether a bus movement was truly unusual or extraordinary.
Other evidence may include:
Because recordings and other records may not remain available indefinitely, identifying the bus, route, location, and approximate time of the incident can be important.
SEPTA is treated as a Commonwealth agency for purposes of Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity law, so claims against it involve rules that do not ordinarily apply to a private person or company.
Sovereign immunity generally protects Commonwealth parties from lawsuits unless a claim falls within an exception established by Pennsylvania law. One of those exceptions concerns the operation of motor vehicles in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party.
A claim involving the operation of a SEPTA bus may therefore fall within that vehicle-liability exception, but that does not automatically establish negligence. The injured passenger still needs evidence supporting the claim.
Pennsylvania law also places statutory limits on damages in claims governed by these sovereign-immunity provisions. Under the current statute, damages generally may not exceed $250,000 for an individual plaintiff or $1 million in the aggregate for the same occurrence.
That is one reason a SEPTA injury should not necessarily be evaluated the same way as an ordinary motor vehicle accident involving a private vehicle.
There can be an important notice requirement in addition to the deadline for filing a lawsuit.
Pennsylvania law generally requires written notice within six months after an injury is sustained or a cause of action accrues when a person intends to pursue a claim for personal injury or property damage against a government unit.
For a claim against a Commonwealth agency, the statute generally requires the written notice to be filed with the agency and also with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. The six-month notice statute specifies information the notice must contain and also provides circumstances in which a failure to comply may be excused.
This notice requirement is separate from Pennsylvania’s general two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims based on negligence.
The practical point is simpler: if you were injured on a SEPTA bus and may have a claim, waiting until the ordinary lawsuit deadline approaches can create unnecessary problems.
Start by getting appropriate medical care, particularly if you struck your head, back, shoulder, knee, or another part of your body when you fell.
Then write down what you remember while the details are still fresh.
Record the bus route, location, approximate time, direction of travel, and anything you remember about what happened immediately before the stop. If you have a fare record, SEPTA Key information, photograph, text message, or other record that helps establish which trip you were taking, preserve it.
If other passengers saw what happened, their observations may also matter. Someone else may have seen the traffic ahead, noticed the driver’s actions, or experienced the same sudden movement.
Most importantly, do not assume that falling on a moving bus either automatically creates a claim or automatically defeats one. The answer can depend heavily on what the evidence shows about how and why the bus moved.
A sudden fall on a SEPTA bus can leave you with more than a painful memory of the ride. You may be dealing with emergency treatment, follow-up appointments, missed work, and injuries that affect your normal routine long after you leave the bus.
At Cohen & Riechelson, we represent people injured in Northeast Philadelphia, Bucks County, and surrounding Pennsylvania communities. We can review how the bus incident occurred, consider what evidence may be available, and explain how Pennsylvania’s rules for SEPTA and other government-related injury claims may affect your options.
If you or someone you love was injured when a SEPTA bus stopped, accelerated, or moved unexpectedly, contact Cohen & Riechelson to discuss what happened and learn more about your legal options.
Disclaimer: The articles on this blog are for informational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal advice from an attorney. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice about your specific situation, please contact our law firm directly.
You called an Uber or Lyft expecting someone else to handle the driving. Maybe your… Read More
You were riding an e-bike through Bensalem, Levittown, or another part of Bucks County when… Read More
You may have been trying to reach a bus stop, business, parking lot, or the… Read More
A hit-and-run accident is frightening under any circumstances. If you were walking in Northeast Philadelphia… Read More
A motorcycle crash can turn an ordinary ride into a frightening, painful, and confusing experience… Read More
You buy a product expecting it to make life easier, not send you or someone… Read More