Mabrey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0569
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) THOMAS A. MABREY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-cv-00569 (APM) ) WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA ) TRANSIT AUTHORITY, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this negligence action against Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (“WMATA”), pro se Plaintiff Thomas Mabrey asserts a single claim of negligence

arising from a fall on an escalator at a WMATA subway station in February 2020. Plaintiff alleges

that WMATA was negligent for (1) “[f]ailing to properly maintain all areas of egress for passengers

in a reasonable safe manner,” (2) “[f]ailing to monitor escalators and keep in safe working

conditions,” and (3) “[f]ailing to employ adequate staff to assist with maintenance and control of

working escalators.” Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, Pl.’s Compl. for Negligence and Personal

Injury, ECF No. 1-3, ¶ 11. He also contends that WMATA “had a duty of care to give warning of

the dangerous condition to the Plaintiff or other [sic.] similarly situated.” Id. ¶ 12.

WMATA seeks entry of summary judgment. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 17

[hereinafter Def.’s Mot.]. Although the court warned Plaintiff about the possible consequences of

failing to respond to WMATA’s motion, see Order, ECF No. 19, he did not do so. Plaintiff therefore

has not disputed any of WMATA’s factual assertions. The court therefore accepts WMATA’s facts

as undisputed for purposes of the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Having considered the full factual record and

WMATA’s arguments, the court grants the motion for the following reasons.

First, Plaintiff has failed to identify any unsafe condition at an “area[] of egress” that gave

rise to his claimed injuries. Def.’s Mot., Def.’s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 17-2

[hereinafter Def.’s Stmt.], ¶¶ 36–37.

Second, Plaintiff has not identified any escalator malfunction or failure that caused his

injuries. To the contrary, video evidence shows that Plaintiff “lost his balance and fell down the

remaining [escalator] steps.” Id. ¶ 19; see also id. ¶ 26 (“Mr. Mabr[e]y reported to the EMTs that

he ‘slipped and fell not paying attention.’”); ¶ 27 (noting that medical records indicate that Mabrey

told providers that “he had fallen because he ‘missed a step’ and ‘caught his toe on the escalator’”).

Third, Plaintiff has not offered any expert testimony as to the standard of care regarding

appropriate staffing of a metro facility. See Burke v. Air Serv Int’l, Inc., 685 F.3d 1102, 1105 (D.C.

Cir. 2012) (“[A] plaintiff must put on expert testimony to establish what the standard of care is if

the subject in question is so distinctly related to some science, profession or occupation as to be

beyond the ken of the average layperson.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Finally, Plaintiff has not pointed to any hazardous condition about which WMATA was

aware and failed to give proper warning and that caused his injuries. See Marinopoliski v. Irish,

445 A.2d 339, 340–41 (D.C. 1982). Plaintiff indeed admits that the escalator step did not

malfunction, and he identified no other hazard contributing to his fall. See Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 30–32.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

A separate final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Dated: November 22, 2024 Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge