Mero v. City Segway Tours of Washington Dc, LLC
826 F. Supp. 2d 100
D.D.C.2011Background
- Mero sues CST DC and CST for negligence, breach of contract, and CPPA-based unfair trade practices stemming from a May 21, 2010 Segway tour injury.
- Email confirmation and tour details included an orientation promise; the “Important Information” stated safety priority and thorough orientation before riding.
- Mero allegedly signed a liability waiver, received training from a CST guide, but noticed a missing Segway control key, which guide allegedly dismissed as unimportant.
- During a guided “buddy buddy” pairing, Mero’s Segway allegedly collided with another rider, causing a fractured arm and ongoing medical issues.
- Plaintiff contends defendants knew or should have known Segway idiosyncrasies; the amended complaint lacks concrete contract terms but ties alleged breach to training and equipment.
- District of Columbia law applies; CST is challenged as a proper entity, and the court distinguishes contract formation from corporate status issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an enforceable contract? | Mero asserts email created a contract for training/risks disclosure. | Defendants contend no definite contract terms or mutuality of obligation. | Count II dismissed for failure to state a contract claim. |
| Did the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing apply? | Implied covenant inherent in any contract; defendants breached it. | No valid contract exists, so covenant claim fails; alternatively, mere conclusory assertion. | Count II dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| Does CPPA claim survive? | Misrepresentation about missing key device could mislead a reasonable consumer. | Claims are vague, conclusory, or puffery; not properly supported. | Count III survives at this stage; denied without prejudice to later dispositive motion. |
| Is City Segway Tours a proper defendant separate from CST DC? | CST is an independent entity; CST DC’s control suggests separate entity status. | CST is not a separate legal entity; healthily conflated with CST DC. | CST not dismissed at this stage; genuine factual dispute about CST’s corporate status remains; CST remains in case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; facts must support a reasonable inference of liability)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requires evidence; not just allegations)
- Ponder v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2009) (contract elements and enforceability under DC law)
- EastBanc, Inc. v. Georgetown Park Assocs. II, L.P., 940 A.2d 996 (D.C. 2008) (contract terms must be definite to determine breach and remedy)
- Nugent v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 752 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010) (breach of implied covenant requires specific conduct showing bad faith)
- Hais v. Smith, 547 A.2d 986 (D.C. 1988) (implied covenant elements described)