The MTA, Meta, and ByteDance Ltd. (TikTok) are jointly responsible for a rash of \u201csubway surfing\u201d deaths, according to court documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Norma Nazario reclamos<\/a> that countless videos on Meta Platforms Inc.’s Instagram and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok encouraged her 15-year-old son to take part in the dangerous challenge. He died when he climbed on top of a Brooklyn-bound J train and fell between the subway cars. Furthermore, the MTA knew that subway surfing was increasingly popular with young people but did nothing to lock doors or limit access, a lawsuit claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the suit, five subway surfing deaths occurred in New York City between 2018 and 2022. The trend accelerated in 2023, when five children, including the plaintiff\u2019s son, died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “This tragedy and the unimaginable suffering<\/a> endured by the plaintiff was entirely preventable had Instagram and TikTok not ignored the health and safety of its users, particularly children using its product, in an effort to rake in greater profits,” court documents state. “Instagram and TikTok’s algorithms intentionally thrust unacceptably dangerous videos that Instagram and TikTok knew to be circulating on their platforms in front of an impressionable 15-year-old boy.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Landowner Duty of Care<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The MTA may well be legally responsible for these deaths, at least in part. Under New York law, subways are an molestia atractiva<\/a>. Landowners are automatically responsible for child injuries if:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Five children died attempting the subway surfing challenge in 2023 alone. The MTA clearly knew about the problem, which clearly posed an outsized risk of serious injury. Furthermore, the MTA didn\u2019t take precautions to secure subways. These three items add up to a lack of reasonable care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As far as the awareness of children is concerned, the risk-reward part of the brain doesn\u2019t develop until about age 25<\/a>. Younger people want the reward (social media likes and peer accolades), but they don\u2019t appreciate the risk (dying).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be “especially alluring to children of tender years” thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates. Instead, it\u2019s usually limited to swimming pools, construction sites, railyards (including subways), and junkyards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Social Media Liability Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Before 2018, social media companies had an ironclad defense to such claims. They argued they just provided a platform and therefore weren\u2019t responsible for injuries, like a date rape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2017 Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA<\/a>) cut the legs out from under that defense. Publishers, including social medial companies, are now responsible for any foreseeable injuries, such as a personal ad-related date rape, that the content they publish causes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence of foreseeability usually includes prior similar incidents related to that platform, overall risk of injury, as outlined above, and prior similar injuries related to any platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n