eNotes: Liability – December 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Greene v. Children’s Nat’l Med. Ctr.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 21-CV-0354

Decided: October 3, 2024

Where Plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case alleged that a hazardous condition was created by the direct actions of an employee of Defendant, the requirement that Plaintiff specifically plead Defendant’s notice of the hazardous condition was relaxed.

Background

Carolyn Greene sued the Children’s National Medical Center after she slipped and fell while visiting her grandson at the hospital. An employee of the Children’s National Medical Center had been cleaning the floor using a machine that cleaned the floor while the employee rode it. This machine allegedly trailed water as it was being used. This included the area between Greene’s grandson’s hospital room and the nursing station. Greene had not seen any signs of water on the floor, nor any signs warning of a wet floor before she slipped and fell. However, conversations with hospital staff after the fall generally reflected that there should have been signage for a wet floor. They also revealed that the hospital would take responsibility for any treatment that Greene’s injury would require. Further, there appeared to be a dispute as to whether there was water on the floor, and even if it were, whether the signage was in fact missing. These facts became even more muddled during discovery.

The Children’s National Medical Center moved for summary judgment. It asserted that there was no genuine dispute of material fact, since Greene’s lawsuit was predicated on her “speculation” that the employee created the hazardous condition leading to her fall. The hospital argued this speculation alone could not establish the “notice” element in her negligence claim. The Superior Court granted the hospital’s Motion.

Holding

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned the Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Greene’s testimony supported the conclusion that the employee was using the machine and had created the hazardous condition, meaning the Defendant had constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The Court held that “there [was] no dispute” about the duty owed to a visitor to the hospital regarding hazardous conditions. The question was whether Greene’s self-serving testimony supported that finding of constructive notice before a jury or other finder of fact. For the Court, the consistency and breadth of the supporting evidence allowed it to conclude that Plaintiff’s “speculative” allegations could survive summary judgment. The circumstantial evidence put forward by Greene – that she saw water streaks, saw no warning signs, saw the hospital employee riding the machine – and the contradictory testimony of the hospital employee, all led the Court to hold that the Complaint could reach the finder of fact.

Questions about this case can be directed to Joseph Mooradian at (202) 318-1751 or jmooradian@tthlaw.com.