MTS Bus Accidents in San Diego: Liability and Proof

After an MTS bus accident, identifying who was responsible and preserving evidence early are essential. California requires common carriers to use the utmost care for their passengers, while different liability rules apply to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. Claims against MTS generally require a written government claim within six months, and bus video may be overwritten much sooner. This article explains who may be liable, how fault is proved, and what steps can help protect your claim.

Hulburt Law Firm represents people seriously injured, and families who have lost someone, in San Diego bus accident cases, including claims against MTS and the private companies that operate many of its routes.

Who Can Be Liable?

MTS and Its Drivers

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System is a public agency. MTS is responsible when its employees negligently injure someone while doing their jobs, and California law specifically makes a public entity liable for an employee’s negligent driving. A driver who runs a red light, follows too closely, or pulls away before a passenger is steady can be named in the claim along with MTS.

Was the Bus Operated by MTS or a Contractor?

MTS routes are operated in two ways. Some are run directly by San Diego Transit Corporation, an MTS subsidiary. Many others are run by a private company under contract with MTS, using MTS-owned buses with MTS branding. A passenger usually cannot tell which operator was behind the wheel.

MTS’s responsibility does not necessarily end because a contractor’s employee was driving. Under Government Code § 815.4, a public entity is liable for the wrongful acts of its independent contractors to the same extent a private person would be, and a common carrier’s duty of utmost care to its passengers is one it generally cannot hand off to a contractor. The private operator can also be responsible for its own driver. Which entity operated the bus also affects the claim deadlines, explained in the deadlines section below.

Other Parties Who May Share Fault

A bus crash often involves more than one responsible party:

• Other drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians whose conduct caused or contributed to the crash
• Manufacturers of the bus or its parts, when a defect in brakes, steering, doors, or ramps contributed
• Maintenance contractors that performed inadequate inspections or repairs
• Other public entities, such as the City of San Diego, the County, or Caltrans, when a dangerous road or bus stop contributed

Identifying every potential defendant early protects sources of recovery. How fault is divided among them is covered in the compensation section below.

The Duty MTS Owes as a Common Carrier

What “Utmost Care” Requires

A city bus that carries passengers for a fare is a common carrier, a business or agency that transports the public for payment. Under Civil Code § 2100, a common carrier must use the utmost care and diligence for its passengers’ safe carriage. California’s jury instruction on a common carrier’s duty describes it as the highest care and the vigilance of a very cautious person: everything human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances to avoid harm to passengers.

The duty is demanding, and even slight negligence can create liability. But a carrier is not an insurer of its passengers’ safety. A passenger must still show that the driver or the agency fell short of that standard and that the failure caused the injury.

Who the Heightened Duty Protects

The utmost-care duty runs to passengers. A pedestrian, cyclist, or driver struck by a bus is owed the ordinary care every driver owes. Both kinds of claims can succeed; they are proven against different standards. Whether someone was already a passenger at the moment of injury, such as while stepping on board or getting off, can itself be disputed, and the answer decides which standard applies.

Proving Fault in Common MTS Accidents

Falls From Sudden Stops, Starts, and Turns

Passengers can be hurt inside the bus when a stop, start, or turn throws them off balance. A transit agency is not responsible for injuries caused solely by the ordinary, expected movement of a bus on the road. But passengers do not have to clear a special “unusual movement” hurdle either. The question is whether the driver used the utmost care required of a common carrier, and even slight negligence in how the bus was operated can be enough (Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 426).

Facts that tend to show a lack of that care include:

• Braking hard or turning sharply when traffic did not require it
• Following too closely, so that a hard stop became unavoidable
• Pulling away before a passenger, especially a senior or a rider using a cane, walker, or wheelchair, was seated or holding on
• Accelerating abruptly while passengers were still moving to their seats

Video can decide these cases, and it cuts both ways. Where the evidence conflicts about whether a bus stopped abruptly without cause, a jury may be allowed to infer negligence (Hardin v. San Jose City Lines, Inc. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 432). But in Agustin, where onboard video clearly showed the bus making an ordinary turn, the transit agency won on summary judgment, before trial, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. That is why the video should be preserved promptly and reviewed alongside witness accounts and other evidence.

Boarding, Exiting, and Wheelchair Securement

A driver must give passengers a reasonable opportunity to get on and off safely. Injuries in this setting often involve a door closing on a rider, a bus moving before a passenger has stepped clear, or a ramp deployed onto an uneven curb.

When a carrier knowingly accepts a passenger with an illness or disability, it must use the additional care reasonably necessary for that passenger’s safety. For wheelchair users, that includes deploying the ramp properly, securing the wheelchair, and offering the assistance the rider needs before the bus moves. A failure at any of those steps can breach the carrier’s duty if it causes injury.

Collisions With Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Other Vehicles

When a bus strikes someone outside it, fault is not automatic. The question is whether the driver used reasonable care: speed for the conditions, use of mirrors and signals, and a proper lookout in crowded corridors. Nighttime, glare, rain, and blocked sight lines bear on what a careful driver would have seen.

A driver who violates a safety law can be presumed negligent, a rule called negligence per se. Rules that often come up in bus collisions include:

• The basic speed law
• Rules against unsafe turns and following too closely
• The duty to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks
• The ban on handheld phone use while driving
• Hours-of-service limits for bus drivers

For cyclists, the analysis often turns on bike lanes, door zones, and whether the bus moved into the cyclist’s space. A pedestrian or cyclist who was also careless, such as by crossing against a signal, may have their recovery reduced, but usually not eliminated.

Dangerous Bus Stops and Roadway Design

Sometimes the problem is the place, not the driver. A public entity can be liable when a dangerous condition of public property causes injury. Under Government Code § 835, the injured person generally must show that the property was in a dangerous condition, meaning it created a substantial risk of injury when used with due care; that the condition caused the injury; that the kind of injury was reasonably foreseeable; and that the entity either created the condition or knew or should have known about it in time to fix it or protect against it.

For bus riders and pedestrians, dangerous conditions can include:

• Stops placed beside high-speed traffic without protection or a safe crossing route
• Poor lighting or blocked sight lines at a stop or crossing
• Missing sidewalks, crosswalks, or ramps that force riders into the roadway
• Broken pavement or uneven surfaces at the stop
• Road design that makes foreseeable collisions more likely

An unsafe location can be a legal cause of an injury even when another driver’s negligence also played a part (Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139; Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099). The entity responsible for the road or stop may be the City, the County, or Caltrans rather than MTS.

Preserving Bus Video, Data, and Records

What Evidence May Be Available

Depending on the bus and the circumstances, useful evidence may include:

• Onboard and exterior video showing the maneuver and how passengers reacted
• GPS and vehicle location data showing speed and position
• Event data on speed, braking, and steering
• Dispatch logs and radio communications between the driver and supervisors
• Driver training records, schedules, and hours-of-service logs
• Maintenance and inspection records for the bus
• Drug and alcohol test results, when post-accident testing under federal transit rules was required or performed
• 911 audio, police or CHP collision reports, and witness statements
• Footage from nearby businesses, traffic cameras, and homes

Accident reconstruction and transit safety experts can compare the bus’s speed, braking, and turning against safe operating practice, and human factors experts can explain what the driver could and should have seen.

How to Keep It From Being Overwritten

Transit video and electronic data can be recorded over in routine operations unless someone asks that it be kept. A written preservation letter to MTS and to any private operator identifies the specific video, data, and records that should not be deleted or altered, and documents that the agency was on notice.

If evidence is lost after that notice, a court may consider sanctions in the litigation. Separately, when there is evidence that a party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence, the jury may be told it can infer the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party (Evidence Code § 413; CACI No. 204). A lost recording does not automatically meet that standard; a preservation letter shows the agency knew the evidence was needed.

Requests under the California Public Records Act can also reach dispatch logs, policies, and other government-held records.

Defenses MTS Raises

MTS may dispute how the injury happened, who was responsible, or whether claim requirements were met. The evidence and procedural history determine how those defenses can be addressed. Common defenses include:

• Ordinary movement. MTS may argue the bus moved normally and the passenger lost balance. Video, vehicle data, and witness accounts bear on whether the stop, start, or turn was one a careful driver would have avoided.
• The passenger’s own conduct. MTS may argue a rider was standing without holding on or was distracted. Under comparative fault, a passenger’s own carelessness reduces a recovery rather than barring it. Comparative fault applies only when MTS or its driver was also negligent, whether in how the bus was driven or in another way, such as failing to secure a wheelchair or give a passenger needed assistance.
• Sudden emergency. A driver may say a hard stop was forced by another vehicle cutting in. Whether that defense applies depends in part on whether the driver’s own speed, following distance, or attention contributed to the situation.
• Design immunity. In dangerous-condition cases, the entity may claim the road or stop was built to an approved plan (Government Code § 830.6). The immunity has limits, and records of prior complaints, collisions, and safety studies can bear on whether it applies.
• Claim requirements. MTS may contend that a claim was late, incomplete, or delivered to the wrong place. Whether a claim can proceed depends on what was presented, when, and to whom; the rules, including limited relief for late claims, are in the next section.

Government Claim Deadlines

The Six-Month Claim Requirement

Before suing MTS or another public entity for personal injury or wrongful death, you must present a written government claim within six months after the claim accrues, which is usually the date of the injury or death (Gov. Code § 911.2). Without a timely claim, a lawsuit is usually barred (State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234). Do not rely on the two-year deadline commonly associated with California personal injury lawsuits.

Each public entity requires its own claim. If the City of San Diego, the County, or Caltrans may share responsibility, a separate claim goes to each.

Claims Against a Private Operator

A claim against the private company operating a route, or against its driver, is not a government claim, because a contractor’s employees are not public employees. That claim is generally subject to California’s two-year personal injury deadline. Do not count on the longer deadline. Because MTS may also be responsible for a contractor’s driver, present a government claim to MTS within six months of the injury whoever was driving, while the operator’s identity is confirmed.

Presenting a Claim to MTS

A government claim must substantially comply with Government Code § 910, including:

• The claimant’s name and address
• The date, place, and circumstances of the accident
• A description of the injury
• The names of public employees involved, if known
• The amount claimed or, for larger claims, a statement of whether the case would be a limited civil case

MTS’s board-adopted claims policy (MTS Policy No. 51) applies these requirements to claims against MTS, San Diego Transit Corporation, and San Diego Trolley, Inc., and provides for claims to be presented on a form supplied by MTS. Confirm MTS’s current claim form and delivery instructions directly with MTS before presenting a claim.

Delivery to the right entity and its designated recipient is part of the requirement. A claim sent only to the wrong office may be ineffective (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983).

After the Claim: Rejection, Lawsuits, and Late Claims

If MTS does not act on a claim within 45 days, the claim is treated as rejected. Once a claim is rejected, the deadline to file a lawsuit depends on the notice MTS gives:

• If MTS gives a complying written rejection notice: six months from the date the notice is personally delivered or mailed. The notice must meet the requirements of Government Code § 913.
• If no complying notice is given: generally two years from the date of injury.

Both rules come from Government Code § 945.6. This six-month period to file a lawsuit is separate from the six-month deadline to present the claim. If the claim deadline was missed, an application for permission to present a late claim may be available, and if MTS denies it, a petition to the court for relief. These options have their own short deadlines; seek advice promptly.

Compensation and Shared Fault

Damages Available

A person injured in an MTS bus accident can recover economic and noneconomic damages. Economic damages cover financial losses: past and future medical care, rehabilitation and medical equipment, lost wages and lost earning capacity, and out-of-pocket costs such as transportation to treatment and home care. Noneconomic damages compensate for pain, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and, in serious cases, disfigurement or disability.

When a bus crash causes a death, surviving family members may recover for lost financial support, the loss of love, companionship, and guidance, and funeral and burial expenses.

Punitive damages cannot be recovered against MTS or any other public entity, though they may be available against a private defendant whose conduct involved malice, oppression, or fraud. Health plans and government programs that paid for treatment may assert liens against the recovery.

Comparative Fault and Multiple Defendants

California uses pure comparative negligence: an injured person’s recovery is reduced by their own percentage of fault, but not eliminated. A jury might assign partial fault to a rider who ignored posted safety instructions or to a pedestrian who crossed against a signal.

When several defendants share fault, economic damages are joint and several, so any one of them can be responsible for the full amount of medical bills and lost earnings. Noneconomic damages are several only, so each defendant pays its own percentage of fault for pain and suffering (Civil Code § 1431.2). In a case against MTS, a contractor, and another driver, that division determines who pays which part of the judgment.

What to Do After an MTS Bus Accident

Get Care and Document Injuries

Call 911 for anyone who is seriously hurt, or ask for paramedics at the scene. If you were jolted, thrown, or struck and feel fine, contact a healthcare provider promptly anyway; some injuries, including concussions, are not obvious at first. Describe every symptom, not only the most painful one, and keep visit summaries, imaging reports, prescriptions, and any work-restriction notes.

Photograph damaged items such as clothing, glasses, a phone, or a walker or wheelchair, and keep them when you can. If a mobility device needs repair or replacement, your safe mobility comes first: photograph the damage and, when feasible, arrange for the device to be inspected or preserved before it is repaired or discarded.

Report the Incident and Gather Evidence

If you can do so safely:

• Report the incident to the driver or a supervisor and ask how to obtain an incident or claim number
• Note the route number, bus number, direction of travel, and time
• Photograph the bus, any other vehicles, the interior (handrails, steps, wet floors), and your injuries
• Collect names and contact information for witnesses

Be Careful With Statements

Adjusters for MTS, its contractor, or another driver’s insurer may ask for a recorded statement or a broad medical authorization. Seek advice before giving either, while meeting any notice and cooperation obligations under your own auto or health insurance policy. Any statement you give should be accurate and limited to what you know.

How Hulburt Law Firm Can Help

MTS cases turn on evidence that can be recorded over in routine operations and a claim deadline far shorter than most people expect. Hulburt Law Firm handles serious injury and wrongful death claims against public transit agencies and their contractors: we send preservation demands, identify every responsible entity, present the government claims, and work with reconstruction and transit safety experts to prove how the injury happened.

If you or someone you love was hurt in an MTS bus accident in San Diego, attorney Conor Hulburt and Hulburt Law Firm can help. Call (619) 821-0500 or message us through our contact form for a free, confidential case review.

Related Resources

• NCTD BREEZE Bus Accident Claims
• School Bus Accidents in San Diego
• Charter and Tour Bus Accidents in San Diego