Cobb v. Wmata, Civil Action No. 2020-3522

Background

On Dec. 6, 2019, Cobb slipped at the Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro station on a foreign substance, fell, and suffered a serious left-knee injury requiring emergency surgery and ongoing treatment.
After the fall Cobb was immobile, crying out for help; a WMATA employee and a WMATA supervisor allegedly saw him but did not assist or advise whether help had been called.
Cobb’s friend ultimately used her phone to call WMATA/EMS; an EMT and ambulance arrived and transported him to the hospital; the friend observed a foreign object/substance near where Cobb fell.
Cobb sued WMATA (filed Dec. 4, 2020) alleging: (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and (2) negligence (including WMATA’s alleged failure to summon aid and a separate premise-liability claim based on the slippery condition).
WMATA moved to partially dismiss: seeking dismissal of the NIED claim (as duplicative or inadequately pled) and dismissal of the negligence claim insofar as it rests on failure to render aid. The Court denied the Partial Motion to Dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NIED must be dismissed as duplicative of negligence (emotional damages recoverable in negligence)	Cobb contends NIED is an alternative theory to recover emotional harms if failure to render aid did not cause physical injury	WMATA argues emotional damages are recoverable under ordinary negligence and a separate NIED count would invite duplicative recovery	Court: Allowed alternative pleading; dismissal is improper — potential double recovery is resolved post-verdict, not by dismissing a claim
Whether Cobb pled the elements of NIED (zone of danger, fear, causation, "serious and verifiable" distress)	Cobb alleges he was in zone of danger, feared for his safety, and suffers insomnia, nightmares, acute anxiety requiring treatment	WMATA contends alleged emotional symptoms are conclusory and not "serious and verifiable"	Court: Allegations (insomnia, nightmares, acute anxiety, treatment) suffice to state a plausible NIED claim when reasonable inferences are drawn for plaintiff
Scope of WMATA’s duty after a passenger is injured (must it render first aid or only summon help?)	Cobb asserts WMATA, as a common carrier, owed a duty to summon or provide reasonable aid	WMATA acknowledges duty to summon medical help but emphasizes it need not itself perform advanced medical care	Court: Confirms WMATA owed duty to summon aid; it need not perform beyond reasonable measures and turn injured person over to those who can provide care
Whether Cobb adequately alleged breach of duty to summon aid	Cobb alleges WMATA employees backed away, said they could not help, retreated to an office, and that EMS arrived only after his friend called	WMATA argues employees acted reasonably (e.g., by calling for help) and thus no breach is pled	Court: Complaint does not allege WMATA actually summoned help and permissibly supports inference they did not; breach adequately alleged and negligence claim survives

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions; pleadings must permit reasonable inference of liability)
Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (discussing Rule 12(b)(6) standard in context of accepting factual allegations)
Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic, 22 A.3d 789 (D.C. 2011) (NIED permits recovery for standalone emotional injury; parasitic damages discussion)
Williams v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 1990) (NIED viable without accompanying physical injury)
Jones v. Howard Univ., 589 A.2d 419 (D.C. 1991) ("serious and verifiable" emotional distress must manifest in external/physical symptoms)
WMATA v. O’Neill, 633 A.2d 834 (D.C. 1993) (scope of WMATA/common-carrier duties; reliance on Restatement §314A)
EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (double recovery should be precluded by reducing judgment, not by dismissing alternative claims)