Summary judgment for defendant casino is reversed as questions of fact exist about whether casino was a common carrier, subject to a stricter standard of care, in providing a van to transport gamblers to and from an adjoining town. A question of fact existed as to whether a casino was a common carrier with respect to its van by which it regularly transported favored gamblers to its establishment from a set location in an adjoining town—and had done so regularly for more than a decade. Questions of fact also were raised as to whether the casino breached its duty of care by not better controlling the entry onto its van—which stopped far from the crowd waiting for it and lacked adequate seating so there was a rush to board which the casino employees did nothing to regulate. Plaintiff was pushed by the surging crowd, lost her footing and broke her hip as a result.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 (Flier, J.); October 19, 2016; 2016 WL 6092412