453 F.Supp.3d 354
D.D.C.2020Background
- On April 12, 2016, Jane Doe was raped at knifepoint on a WMATA Red Line train by John Prentice Hicks.
- About a week earlier Hicks had masturbated on a WMATA train; WMATA allegedly identified him but did not warn passengers, bar him, or apprehend him before the rape.
- Doe sued WMATA in D.C. Superior Court (negligence and punitive damages); WMATA removed the case under the WMATA Compact and moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- WMATA invoked sovereign immunity under Section 80 of the Compact: liability for torts committed in proprietary functions but immunity for torts occurring in performance of governmental functions.
- The court applied the two-step governmental/proprietary inquiry (look for mandatory policy/statute; if none, assess whether action is discretionary and grounded in social/economic/political goals) and treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the jurisdictional motion.
- The court held WMATA immune from Doe’s claims: (1) alleged failures to respond to the earlier incident are governmental (police) or discretionary; (2) train-design decisions are discretionary/governmental; punitive damages are barred absent an express waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA is immune for alleged negligent failure to respond to Hicks’s prior misconduct | Doe: claims target organizational negligence beyond MTPD — failure to warn, prevent, or apprehend | WMATA: response to suspected criminal conduct is a police/governmental function immune under Section 80 | Held: immune — law-enforcement response is quintessentially governmental; alternatively discretionary conduct grounded in policy so immunity applies |
| Whether WMATA is immune for alleged train-design defects (tinted/dark partitions) | Doe: design created foreseeable danger and WMATA should have removed/modified partitions | WMATA: vehicle and system design are discretionary/quasi‑legislative planning functions immune under the Compact | Held: immune — design and planning are discretionary governmental functions; no tort liability |
| Whether punitive damages are available against WMATA | Doe: seeks punitive damages; invokes "extraordinary circumstances" exception | WMATA: punitive damages barred because Compact contains no waiver; punitive damages unavailable against sovereign entity | Held: barred — no express waiver in Compact and the purported ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exception is not a recognized basis to override immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neill v. W.M.A.T.A., 633 A.2d 834 (D.C. 1993) (mass transportation generally proprietary; common carrier duty of care)
- Jeanty v. W.M.A.T.A., 718 A.2d 172 (D.C. 1998) (common-carrier vigilance and passenger protection principles)
- Beebe v. W.M.A.T.A., 129 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (police activity is a quintessential governmental function)
- KiSKA Constr. Corp. v. W.M.A.T.A., 321 F.3d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (two-step discretionary/ministerial analysis imported from FTCA)
- Burkhart v. W.M.A.T.A., 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (police activity and governmental-function analysis)
- McKethean v. W.M.A.T.A., 588 A.2d 708 (D.C. 1991) (design and planning are governmental/quasi-legislative)
- Abdulwali v. W.M.A.T.A., 315 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (design and placement decisions are discretionary)
- Simpson v. W.M.A.T.A., 688 F. Supp. 765 (D.D.C. 1988) (vehicle design decisions immune as discretionary)
- City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1981) (punitive damages generally unavailable against state-level sovereign entities)