We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Rouse v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority , 266 Ga. App. 619 597 SE2d 650 2004, and posed this question: Does the requirement that common carriers exercise “extraordinary diligence to protect the lives and persons of their passengers” impose a duty upon those carriers to stay informed of safety advances in product design and to buy and incorporate those safety advances into previously-purchased, non-defective products Leslie Rouse was injured when her foot became entrapped under the comb plate of an escalator in the Five Points MARTA rail station in Atlanta. She filed a negligence action in Fulton County Superior Court, naming as defendants MARTA and Millar Elevator Service Company, which had the contract to maintain the escalator. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants finding no evidence that defendants “knew or should have known of any alleged malfunction of the escalator.” Rouse appealed. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, reversed the grant of summary judgment. Rouse , supra. The majority concluded that a question of fact existed as to whether MARTA was obligated to add an optional safety feature a comb plate impact switch which would automatically stop an escalator if an object becomes caught as it approaches the comb plate, not required by code to be retrofitted to older escalators, in order to fulfill its duty of extraordinary care. This holding required the Court of Appeals to overrule Darlington Corp. v. Finch , 113 Ga. App. 825 149 SE2d 861 1966, which held that “extraordinary” care did not necessarily impose a duty to add optional safety features.
1. A carrier of passengers, such as MARTA, must use extraordinary diligence to protect the lives and persons of its passengers. OCGA § 46-9-132; Sparks v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority , 223 Ga. App. 768 1 478 SE2d 923 1996; Millar Elevator Service Co. v. O’Shields , 222 Ga. App. 456, 458 2 475 SE2d 188 1996. Extraordinary diligence is defined as “that extreme care and caution which very prudent and thoughtful persons exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” OCGA § 51-1-3. See also Southeastern Stages v. Stringer , 263 Ga. 641 437 SE2d 315 1993; East Tenn. &c. R. Co. v. Green , 95 Ga. 736, 737 22 SE 658 1895.
