This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Amanda Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District

Published: Nov. 15, 2019 | Result Date: Oct. 10, 2019 | Filing Date: Jun. 17, 2015 |

Case number: 15-cv-02726-TSH Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Thomas S. Hixson

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Catherine M. Cabalo
(Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway & Wise)

Carla D. Aikens
(Carla D. Aikens PC)


Defendant

Kurt D. Bridgman
(Vogl Meredith Burke, LLP )

Guy W. Stilson
(Vogl Meredith Burke, LLP)

Robert G. Howie Jr.
(Howie & Smith LLP)

Audrey Anne Smith
(Howie & Smith LLP)


Facts

On August 25, 2014, Amanda Jones was in Santa Cruz attending a conference. While there, she utilized a motorized scooter to move around. She boarded a bus operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to San Jose. The bus driver assisted her with securing the scooter. While on the way, the scooter fell over, injuring Jones. Jones filed a lawsuit against Amtrak.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the bus driver did not properly secure the scooter. Plaintiff contended that the bus driver's actions came in the course and scope of employment, making defendant vicariously liable. Plaintiff contends that the driver's actions were negligent and that defendant's failure to maintain a safe environment for the scooter-bound on its bus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by choosing to remain seated in the scooter without a seat belt. Defendant contended that other seats were available on the bus, but plaintiff declined to sit there. Defendant further contends that plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing intentional discrimination, as required by the ADA and the Unruh act.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


#133613

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390