P was hurt on D's bus when the wheelchair accessible seat collapsed under him. P could not prove that D actually knew of the defect but nonetheless relied on a theory of constructive notice evidenced by a computer printout of a repair record that the seat had been fixed or adjusted and that a proper inspection of those repairs would have revealed the defect causing the collapse 11 days later. The court charged the jury with the then accepted standard of care for a common carrier; highest care owed by a common carrier. P got the verdict under the constructive notice theory, and the Appellate Division affirmed without addressing the standard of care. This appeal resulted.