Buses Answer to a Higher Standard

Not Held to the Same Standard as Everyone Else

Most Houston drivers are judged against a familiar legal standard: would a reasonably careful person have acted differently. Bus operators face a considerably tougher test under Texas law, one that has applied to common carriers for more than a century and a half.

The High Degree of Care Standard

Texas courts hold common carriers, including bus companies, to a high degree of care rather than the ordinary reasonable care standard that applies to typical drivers. The Texas Supreme Court has described this as requiring the foresight and prudence of a very cautious, competent, and prudent person, a standard the court reaffirmed as recently as 2020 in a case involving a city transit system.

• Ordinary drivers: judged by a reasonable person standard
• Common carriers: judged by a high degree of care standard
• The duty applies from boarding through safe disembarking
• Even a minor lapse can constitute negligence under this stricter test

Why This Distinction Actually Matters

Conduct that might not count as negligence for an ordinary driver, such as a somewhat hard brake or a slightly abrupt stop, can constitute a breach of duty when a bus operator does it, given the elevated standard the law applies. This is not a technicality. It reflects the reality that bus passengers often lack seatbelts and face genuine risk from sudden movements that a driver in a personal vehicle simply does not present to their passengers in the same way.

Courts have applied this reasoning consistently for well over a century, recognizing that passengers place themselves entirely in a carrier’s hands the moment they step aboard, with no meaningful ability to control the vehicle or brace against sudden movements the way a driver in their own car normally could.

When the Higher Duty Applies

The high degree of care standard attaches throughout the passenger relationship, covering boarding, the ride itself, and disembarking, though it does not extend indefinitely once a passenger has safely exited and moved away from the vehicle. A fall while stepping off, a sudden door closure catching a passenger, or an abrupt stop that throws a standing passenger can all potentially fall within this heightened duty.

Government Owned Transit Comes With Its Own Rules

Houston METRO and similar public transit agencies are government entities, which means claims against them run through the Texas Tort Claims Act rather than standard negligence procedures alone. This statute provides only a limited waiver of governmental immunity and imposes shorter notice deadlines, sometimes as brief as six months, that do not apply to claims against a private charter or tour bus company.

How Comparative Fault Still Applies

Even with the elevated duty on the carrier’s side, Texas still applies its modified comparative negligence rule to these cases. An injured passenger can recover damages as long as they are fifty percent or less at fault, with any recovery reduced by their own percentage of responsibility. A bus company will sometimes argue a passenger contributed to their own injury by not holding a handrail or by standing before the bus came to a complete stop.

Building a Claim Around the Elevated Standard

A Houston bus accident lawyer investigating a crash typically gathers maintenance records, driver training files, and internal safety policies, since these details help show whether the carrier actually met the high degree of care Texas law requires, not simply whether the driver avoided an outright reckless act.

Determining Which Rules Apply to a Specific Carrier

Whether a claim involves METRO, a school district, or a private charter company changes which procedural rules and deadlines apply from the outset. A Houston bus accident lawyer reviewing a new case confirms this distinction immediately, since a government entity claim can carry a deadline measured in months rather than years.

Pursuing a Claim With the Full Legal Picture

Greenberg Streich Injury Lawyers evaluates each bus accident case with attention to both the elevated duty of care the law imposes and the specific procedural requirements that apply depending on which carrier was involved.