62 A.3d 1275
D.C.2013Background
- Briscoe sued the District of Columbia for negligence over a curbstone defect in front of her home.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the District, finding no genuine issue of notice.
- Briscoe contends there is a genuine issue whether the District had constructive notice of the defect.
- The District argues the defect was minor and non-negligent and that there was no notice.
- The appellate court reviews de novo and affirms, concluding the defect was de minimis and no constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the curbstone defect was negligent as a matter of law. | Briscoe argues the defect caused her fall and may be actionable. | District contends the defect is de minimis and not negligent. | No, defect de minimis; District not liable as a matter of law. |
| Whether the District had constructive notice of the defect. | Briscoe asserts longstanding, observable deterioration accessible to District employees. | District argues the defect was inconspicuous and not notice-worthy. | No genuine issue; lack of constructive notice due to inconspicuous defect. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied further discovery. | Briscoe needed discovery to oppose the motion. | District asserts discovery was unnecessary given lack of material facts. | Affirmed; no reversible error in denial of discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rajabi v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 650 A.2d 1319 (D.C.1994) (duty to maintain streets; not insurer of safety)
- Proctor v. District of Columbia, 273 A.2d 656 (D.C.1971) (minor defects are common; not always negligent)
- Williams v. District of Columbia, 646 A.2d 962 (D.C.1992) (insignificant defects negate liability; need not show actual defect)
- Lynn v. District of Columbia, 734 A.2d 168 (D.C.1999) (constructive notice depends on peculiar circumstances)
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. Jones, 332 A.2d 358 (D.C.1975) (concerning conspicuousness of defects)
- Klein v. District of Columbia, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 409 F.2d 164 (D.C.1969) (protruding hazard in sidewalk cases)
- Curtis v. District of Columbia, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 265, 328 F.2d 566 (D.C.1964) (protruding sidewalk hazard considerations)
- Cooper (District of Columbia v. Cooper), 445 A.2d 652 (D.C.1982) (walkway condition issues; en banc discussion)
- Woodbury v. District of Columbia, 136 U.S. 450 (1890) (early construct of notice and duty principles)