eNotes: Liability – May 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Whiteru v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 22-7154

Decided: December 29, 2023

Inquiry certified to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as to the status of an individual as an invitee or trespasser where he involuntarily exceeds the scope of invitation.

Background

In October of 2013, Okiemute Whiteru entered the Judiciary Square metro station, owned by Defendant WMATA, while intoxicated. After paying his fare and travelling down the escalator to the platform, Whiteru leaned against a concrete barrier which separated the platform from a trench-like space between the platform and the interior wall of the station. Whiteru fell over that barrier, was injured to the point of immobilization, and ultimately passed away after several hours. Whiteru was not aided during this time due, at least in part, to the incident occurring around 1:00 a.m. It is unknown whether WMATA employees engaged in the required inspections of the platforms. Whiteru was not discovered until four days later.

This case arrived in the D.C. Circuit on a complex procedural posture. Whiteru’s estate first sued WMATA on a negligence theory in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That Court dismissed the case due to Whiteru’s admitted contributory negligence of intoxication. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that because WMATA owes passengers a heightened standard of care as a common carrier, WMATA could still be found responsible for the exacerbation of the injuries occurring after WMATA should have discovered Whiteru and come to his aid. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case on to the federal District Court for further analysis. On remand, the District Court considered what duty WMATA owed to Whiteru. Specifically, the Court considered whether his fall backwards into the trench make him a trespasser, or whether he remained a passenger who was owed a duty of care because he involuntarily fell into the trench-like space. The District Court held that he was a trespasser. Plaintiffs appealed again.

Holding

This time, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found it was confronted by a question of first impression. It thus certified the question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for further analysis. The question posed was whether Whiteru’s fall made him an invite or a trespasser when the fall was involuntary. The D.C. Circuit certified the following question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the highest “state”-level court for the District of Columbia): “Under District of Columbia law, and under the facts described, may a plaintiff who, as a passenger located on a common carrier’s station platform, involuntarily falls backward from the station platform into a non-public area immediately adjacent to the station platform, and from the impact of such fall sustains immobilizing injuries, recover for the exacerbation of those injuries attributable to the common carrier’s failure to aid him, if the common carrier knew or had reason to know of his injuries?”

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