The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) can be held responsible for a serious assault committed by one of its bus drivers. This decision comes after a customer, Matthew Theisz, was violently attacked by the driver, who had a history of anger management issues and prior misconduct.
The incident occurred on March 3, 2015, during a snowstorm in Lynn, Massachusetts. Theisz was trying to get directions from the bus driver after feeling lost and frustrated. When he banged on the bus’s door to get the driver’s attention, the driver reacted aggressively, eventually leaving his seat to confront Theisz. After a heated exchange, the driver physically assaulted Theisz, resulting in a traumatic brain injury that has left him permanently disabled.
The MBTA had argued that it was protected from liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), claiming that it should not be held responsible for the driver’s actions. However, the court found that the MBTA could be liable for its negligence in hiring and supervising the driver, who had a known history of aggressive behavior. The court emphasized that public employers cannot escape liability for placing employees with known violent tendencies in positions where they interact with the public.
Prior to the assault, the driver had been involved in multiple incidents, including a 2013 episode where he left his bus unattended to attack a passenger, leading to property damage. Despite this, he was only suspended for one day and returned to work. The court noted that the MBTA had failed to take appropriate action regarding the driver’s behavior, which contributed to the circumstances that led to Theisz’s injuries.
In its ruling, the court clarified that while public employers are generally shielded from liability for the intentional acts of their employees, they can still be held accountable for negligent hiring and supervision. The MBTA’s failure to act on the driver’s known issues was a significant factor in the court’s decision.
This ruling highlights the responsibilities of public employers to ensure the safety of their employees and the public. It underscores the importance of proper oversight and the consequences of neglecting known risks in the workplace.