Hill v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 11/24/2014. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DENISE ADAMS HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METRO AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No. PJM 14-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Denise Adams Hill has sued the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”)
for negligence as a result of her slip and fall on a WMATA escalator at the Grosvenor Metro
Station in Bethesda, MD. Following discovery, WMATA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
(Paper No. 12). For the reasons that follow, WMATA’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper
No. 12) is GRANTED.
On a motion for summary judgment, the Court may grant the motion when “the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S.
242, 249 (1986).
These are the undisputed facts: At approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 13, 2013, Hill was
riding on a descending escalator at the Grosvenor Metro Station when a lurch in the escalator
caused her to fall and sustain injuries. Just prior to Hill’s fall, other patrons had used the
escalator without incident, and there is no indication in the record that WMATA had prior notice
of a defect in the escalator that would have caused the escalator to move abruptly.
–1–
WMATA argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Hill has failed to
name an expert witness to establish negligence in the alleged malfunction of the escalator.
Because WMATA had no prior notice of a defect that would cause the escalator to lurch, it
argues Hill must have an expert to establish that the escalator would not have malfunctioned
absent WMATA’s negligence. Hill responds that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur controls here,
and therefore an expert is not necessary to establish negligence. WMATA submits that, under
Maryland law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply on escalator (or elevator)
malfunction cases.
The Court agrees with WMATA. “[A] case involving complex issues of fact, for which
expert testimony is required, is not a proper case for res ipsa loquitur.” Holzhauer, v. Saks &
Co., 697 A.2d 89, 95 (Md. 1997). This is because res ipsa loquitur only applies when “the
common knowledge of jurors is sufficient to support an inference or finding of negligence on the
part of a defendant.” Id. at 94 (internal quotation omitted). As the Court of Appeals of
Maryland explained, “in cases concerning the malfunction of complex machinery, an expert is
required to testify that the malfunction is of a sort that would not occur absent some negligence.”
Holzhauer, 697 A.2d at 95; see also Jones v. Reichert Jung, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (D.
Md. 2002) (“Expert testimony is required . . . because the liability issues require the application
of science, mechanics and engineering rather than ordinary matters which jurors would be aware
of by virtue of common knowledge.”).
Hill’s failure to name an expert to opine as to WMATA’s purported negligence and the
inapplicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the case are fatal to Hill’s suit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS WMATA’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Paper No. 12) and the case will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
–2–
A separate Order will ISSUE.
/s/
_
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 24, 2014
–3–
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?