962 F. Supp. 2d 141
D.D.C.2013Background
- Blake attended a McKinley Technology High School homecoming dance on Oct. 15, 2010.
- Blake, who had smoked marijuana earlier that evening, exhibited impairment during the event.
- Securitas personnel were hired to provide security; three guards were on duty that night.
- Gendre, Moss, and Bacon monitored Blake and intervened as his behavior deteriorated; Blake eventually ran toward the atrium balcony.
- Blake climbed under cables and over the balcony guard, then fell four stories to the atrium floor.
- Plaintiff alleges Securitas’ negligent security and Purvis’s failure to respond caused Blake’s injuries; Securitas moves for summary judgment asserting contributory negligence and lack of proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributory negligence as a matter of law | Blake argues genuine issues of causation; not barred by contributory negligence | Blake’s intoxication and dangerous conduct justify contributory negligence | Contributory negligence found as a matter of law. |
| Safety statute defense (SSSCPA) bars contributory negligence | Statutes designed to protect students negate contributory negligence | Statute imposes a safety duty on Securitas | Safety statute defense does not apply; no duty on private security. |
| Whether marijuana impairment constitutes per se contributory negligence | Impairment alone should not automatically bar recovery | Impairment plus dangerous actions show per se negligence | Conduct and impairment support contributory negligence per se. |
| Whether Blake should be held to a child-standard of care | Seventeen-year-old should be judged by a lower standard | No lesser standard applies given proximity to adulthood | No applied child standard; adult standard governs; conduct still negligent. |
| Proximate cause | Negligence of Securitas could proximately cause Blake’s injuries | Contributory negligence bars recovery regardless of causation | Court need not resolve causation due to conclusive contributory negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkinson v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc., 821 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (safety statute exception requires a duty on defendant; not met here)
- Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc., 751 A.2d 972 (D.C. 2000) (duty element required to trigger safety statute defense)
- Washington Metro Area Transit Auth. v. Jones, 443 A.2d 45 (D.C. 1982) (contributory negligence may be decided as a matter of law in exceptional cases)
- District of Columbia v. Brown, 589 A.2d 384 (D.C. 1991) (adult standard of care generally applies; exceptions limited)
- Phillips v. D.C. Transit System, Inc., 198 A.2d 740 (D.C. 1964) (illustrates contributory negligence analysis under DC law)
- Phillips v. Fujitech America, Inc., 3 A.3d 324 (D.C. 2010) (contributory negligence framework under DC law)
- Marshall v. D.C. Carnival Carnival, Inc., (unspecified reporter) ((DC code reference)) (illustrative of intoxication-related contributory negligence)