923 F. Supp. 2d 168
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs, Beatrice and Ronald Girdler, sued the United States under the FTCA for injuries from a fall on the NASM sidewalk in DC on Oct. 3, 2008.
- Plaintiffs allege Smithsonian failed to properly maintain, inspect, remedy, and warn about a sidewalk defect adjacent to NASM.
- Bench trial held July 9–11, 2012; plaintiffs offered testimony from their witnesses and experts, and Smithsonian contested with its experts.
- Court applied DC negligence standards under the FTCA, with liability limited to the same standards as private actors in DC.
- Court found no hazardous condition and no breach, and also held Mrs. Girdler’s contributory negligence barred recovery.
- Judgment entered for the Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sidewalk defect was a hazardous condition | Girdlers contend a triangular depression/raised ledge created a tripping hazard. | Defendant argues the area was small, usable, and not hazardous under DC law. | Not a hazard; no breach established. |
| Whether Smithsonian breached a duty of care in maintenance/inspection | Failure to maintain/inspect caused the fall. | Sidewalk was not in a hazardous condition; inspections were adequate. | No breach proven. |
| Whether the defect proximately caused the injury | Defect directly caused the fall. | Plaintiff’s distraction and conduct caused the fall; no proximate link shown. | No proximate causation established. |
| Effect of contributory negligence on recovery | Smithsonian negligence plus plaintiff’s damages. | Plaintiff was contributorily negligent by not watching where she was walking. | Contributory negligence bars recovery. |
| Applicability of ANSI/ASTM/F1637 guidelines to standard of care | Guidelines set the standard of care for walking surfaces. | Guidelines are non-mandatory; DC code adopts IPMC, not ANSI/ASTM F1637. | Guidelines not controlling; no duty breach under IPMC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. District of Columbia, 445 A.2d 652 (D.C. 1982) (mere accident does not prove negligence; duty/breach required)
- Williams v. District of Columbia, 646 A.2d 962 (D.C. 1992) (hazard must be unreasonably dangerous; de minimis defects not actionable)
- Tucci v. District of Columbia, 956 A.2d 684 (D.C. 2008) (damages for minor defects not enough to show unreasonably dangerous condition)
- Poyner v. Loftus, 694 A.2d 69 (D.C. 1997) (contributory negligence can bar recovery; distraction and looking away fail to negate.)
- District of Columbia v. Freeman, 477 A.2d 713 (D.C. 1984) (prior notice alone not enough; must show unreasonably dangerous condition)