858 F. Supp. 2d 33
D.D.C.2012Background
- Robinson sued WMATA in the District of Columbia alleging negligent operation of a bus after she fell while standing in the aisle on April 16, 2008.
- Bus No. 2170, driven by Ronald Bumpass, had about seven passengers; Robinson had paid her fare and was standing when she fell.
- Robinson claims the bus accelerated/braked abruptly, causing a jerky motion that led to her injury, while the bus was in motion.
- WMATA moved for summary judgment arguing sovereign immunity and lack of expert evidence; plaintiff later disclosed Berkowitz as an expert.
- Court addressed WMATA’s sovereign immunity under the WMATA Compact and whether SOPs and policies are discretionary or mandatory.
- Court denied WMATA’s motion in part, concluding immunity does not bar claims based on negligent following of safety directives, and allowed the expert-based negligence claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA's policy allowing standing passengers is immune from suit | Policy is discretionary and immune; not sole basis of claim | Policy is discretionary; immunity bars suit | Not barred; immunity does not apply to alleged failure to follow safety directives |
| Whether plaintiff can prove negligence with expert standard of care | Berkowitz provides national standard of care applicable to SOPs | SOPs alone do not establish a national standard | Expert admissible; Berkowitz may establish a national standard of care |
| Whether Williams' biomechanical testimony suffices to prove negligence | Williams shows necessary force to cause injury and breach of standard by driver | Williams relies on averages and lacks bus specifics to prove negligence | Williams' testimony could aid jury and may be sufficient at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Beebe v. WMATA, 129 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (waiver of sovereign immunity for proprietary torts under WMATA Compact)
- WMATA v. Barksdale-Showell, 965 A.2d 16 (D.C. 2009) (discretionary vs. ministerial analysis for immunity)
- Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (discretionary function immunity tied to policy execution vs. formulation)
- O’Neill (Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. O'Neill), 633 A.2d 834 (D.C. 1993) (WMATA safety directives not shielded by immunity)
- Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (prescription vs. discretion in applying regulations)
- Briggs v. WMATA, 481 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (standard for expert testimony in determining national standard of care)
- Clark v. D.C., 708 A.2d 632 (D.C. 1997) (experts may define national standard of care beyond internal SOPs)
- Varner v. Dist. of Columbia, 891 A.2d 260 (D.C. 2006) (SOPs may be admitted as evidence though not controlling standard)
- Pazmino v. WMATA, 638 A.2d 677 (D.C. 1994) (injury evidence may supplement negligence proof)