55 A.3d 663
Md.2012Background
- Two consolidated WMATA cases involve Veronica Tinsley and Kim Hodge alleging slip-and-fall at WMATA metro stations.
- Plaintiffs contend WMATA’s maintenance/cleaning decisions caused wet floors; WMATA asserts sovereign immunity under WMATA Compact §80.
- Court analyzes whether §80 (governmental function immunity) applies to these maintenance decisions.
- Section 80 waives immunity for proprietary functions but preserves immunity for governmental functions; discretionary, policy-grounded decisions may fall within governmental sphere.
- Court ultimately holds WMATA immune from suit in both cases; judgments affirmed or approved for immunity-based rulings.
- Discussion discusses maintenance/discretion as policy-based decisions and interprets §75’s scope in relation to local building laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §80 immunizes WMATA from Tinsley claims. | Tinsley argues WMATA’s policy/time decisions are proprietary. | WMATA argues decisions are discretionary governmental functions. | WMATA immune under §80. |
| Whether §75 limits WMATA’s immunity in Hodge. | Hodge contends §75 subjects WMATA to county building laws. | WMATA asserts §75 does not apply to station maintenance in building-law sense. | §75 does not negate immunity. |
| Whether maintenance decisions were grounded in public policy, not discretion. | Maintenance timing and methods reflect safety duties. | Decisions based on economic/policy considerations; immune. | Maintenance decisions are policy-grounded and immune. |
| Whether open warnings or knowledge of danger affect liability. | Warnings alone cannot absolve duty to provide safe exit. | Warning cones and open/obvious danger limitations apply. | Warnings do not defeat immunity; case resolved on §80 grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 781 F.2d 218 (D.C. Cir.1986) (immunity acknowledged for governmental functions)
- Proctor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 412 Md. 691 (Md. 2010) (limits of immunity under §80; proprietary vs governmental functions)
- Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 290 F.3d 201 (4th Cir.2002) (discretionary/ministerial analysis as tool for §80)
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Barksdale-Showell, 965 A.2d 16 (D.C.2009) (maintenance decisions deemed policy-grounded; immunity preserved)