eNotes: Liability – November 2024 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Leach v. One Parking 555, LLC
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 22-CV-0497

Decided: August 1, 2024

Expert opinions must articulate, with specificity, how the defendant violated or breached the standard of care. Broad generalities are insufficient.

Background

On July 25 2018, Plaintiff suffered a fall on a single step riser in a parking garage operated by Defendant. Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging one count of negligence and one count of negligence per se. There was no dispute that a pedestrian walkway indicated by yellow cross-hatched lines was present in front of the step, either side of the step had handrails installed, and the vertical edge of the step was yellow, while the top of the landing was dark gray. Plaintiff presented the testimony of two experts to support her claim that Defendant had breached the standard of care. Both experts opined that Defendant breached the standard of care because the step was inconspicuous; however, expert two referenced additional sources beyond those referenced by expert one. Additionally, expert two opined that Defendant should have modified the step into a ramp.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff had insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the step was hazardous and caused her fall. Defendant further argued that it owed no duty to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that it had actual or constructive notice that the step was hazardous. The Trial Court granted the Motion for summary judgment, finding that while the Defendant did owe Plaintiff a duty, Plaintiff failed to present evidence that the step was hazardous and that Defendant had actual or constructive notice that the step was hazardous. The Trial Court supported its findings by pointing out that no prior injuries related to the step had been reported. Regarding the experts’ testimony, the Trial Court acknowledged that they recommended that additional signage should be placed by the step as a precaution, but could not cite a standard that required or mandated the installation of signage. Plaintiff timely appealed.

Holding

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Trial Court’s finding that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty. It further indicated that Plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Defendant had constructive notice that the step was hazardous because Plaintiff failed to establish that the step was in fact hazardous. As it related to Plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony, the Court found the same insufficient in establishing how the Defendant violated and/or breached the proposed standard of care. The Court acknowledged that each expert supported his/her opinion as to the proper standard of care by referencing sources, but then failed to opine as to how, specifically, Defendant failed to meet that standard. Regarding expert two’s opinion that Defendant should have made the step a ramp, the Court found that the expert failed to cite any standard that mandated or required that the step be converted. The Court ultimately affirmed the Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment.

Questions about this case can be directed to Marcelo Perez at (202) 945-9503 or mperez@tthlaw.com.