Robinson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
774 F.3d 33
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Robinson, a WMATA bus passenger, was injured when the bus decelerated at a stop sign and she fell after losing her grip on a handrail.
- Driver Ronald Bumpass admitted he did not check the rearview mirror before leaving the stop.
- Robinson alleged two theories of negligence: violation of WMATA SOPs (check-your-mirror and start-gradually, stop-smoothly) and an extraordinary jerking force from braking.
- Evidence included expert Dr. Berkowitz linking SOPs to national safety standards and Robinson’s own testimony about the jerk and abrupt stop.
- The district court granted WMATA's Rule 50 motions, and the jury verdict favored Robinson, which the district court later overturned; on appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment for WMATA.
- The issues center on whether SOPs establish the standard of care and whether Robinson proved causation, or whether the jerk theory supports liability under District of Columbia tort law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SOPs establish the applicable standard of care | Robinson argues SOPs reflect the national standard of care | WMATA contends SOPs either lack national-standard basis or causally connect to injury | No; SOPs do not establish a DC-wide standard of care without proper causation evidence |
| Whether violation of the check-your-mirror SOP causally caused the injury | A mirror check would have shown Robinson was secure, causing a deviation to injure her | No causal link shown between mirror check and injury; Robinson was secure if holding the handrail | No causation; deviation could not be linked to the injury |
| Whether the ‘start gradually, stop smoothly’ SOP can support negligence under DC law | SOP could reflect standard of care and support negligence | DC law does not treat ordinary jerks as negligence absent extraordinary force | Cannot serve as DC standard of care; not enough to prove negligence |
| Whether Robinson can prove negligence via the jerk/extraordinary-force theory without experts | Circumstantial evidence of extraordinary jerk suffices without expert testimony | Courts require extraordinary force shown by evidence beyond ordinary jerks | Not sufficient; testimony described movement consistent with proper operation and no extraordinary force |
Key Cases Cited
- Briggs v. WMATA, 481 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (DC law on expert proof and standard of care for safety standards)
- Clark v. District of Columbia, 708 A.2d 632 (D.C. 1997) (expert must tie practice to national standard of care)
- O’Neill v. WMATA, 633 A.2d 834 (D.C. 1993) (driver’s duty and safety standards for public transit)
- Boyko v. WMATA, 468 A.2d 582 (D.C. 1983) (injury from a jerk must be extraordinary, not ordinary thereof)
- Fells v. WMATA, 357 A.2d 395 (D.C. 1976) (normal jerks do not establish negligence; requires extraordinary force)
- Wiggins v. Capital Transit Co., 122 A.2d 117 (D.C. 1956) (testimony of movement not itself enough for negligence)
- Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 570 F.3d 305 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (DC standards for expert testimony in safety cases)