Martin v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 81-1245
| Decision Date | 11 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1245,81-1245 |
| Citation | 667 F.2d 435 |
| Parties | T. Ivonne MARTIN, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Peter J. Messitte, Chevy Chase, Md. (Messitte & Rosenberg, P. A., Chevy Chase, Md., A. J. Spero, Rutland, Vt., on brief), for appellant.
Robert B. Cave, Washington, D. C. (Vincent H. Cohen, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, dismissing the complaint of appellant, T. Ivonne Martin, which alleged false arrest and assault and battery. 1 After a hearing the district court ruled that the appellee, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), was immune from suit on the basis of governmental immunity provided in § 80 of the WMATA compact.
On January 31, 1980, Mrs. Martin boarded a bus owned and operated by WMATA. She allegedly inquired as to the fare, placed a previously purchased Metro coupon in the fare box and took her seat on the bus. Mrs. Martin was then approached by a plainclothes WMATA police officer who identified himself and informed her that she was under arrest for failure to pay her fare. When Mrs. Martin protested, saying that she had in fact paid, the officer directed the driver to stop the bus, whereupon the officer and a cohort forcibly removed her from the bus. Appellant was subsequently searched and taken to the local magistrate and booked on charges of fare evasion. The Commonwealth Attorney for Fairfax County, Virginia, ultimately entered a nolle prosequi due to the arresting officer's repeated failure to show up for trial.
This suit, originally brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia, was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. WMATA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stating that WMATA possesses sovereign immunity from tort liability arising from the officer's acts. The district court granted appellee's motion based on § 80 of the WMATA compact.
WMATA was created in 1966 by an interstate compact enacted and consented to by Congress and adopted by the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia. At the time of WMATA's creation the signatories had differing rules on governmental immunity. As an obvious compromise, § 80 was enacted to provide for the uniform treatment of WMATA in an area of potential conflicts. Section 80 reads, in pertinent part, that WMATA
shall be liable ... for its torts ... committed in the conduct of any proprietary function, in accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keenan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Authority
..."`if the operation of a police force is not a governmental function, then a governmental function may not exist.'" Martin v. WMATA, 667 F.2d 435, 436 (4th Cir.1981) (quoting Bryant v. Mullins, 347 F.Supp. 1282, 1286 (W.D.Va.1972)), cited in Morris, 781 F.2d at 220. While Morris did not invo......
-
Smith v. Wmata
...to the METRO, we have also recognized the difficulty in determining when a particular function is a proprietary one.7 Martin v. WMATA, 667 F.2d 435, 436 (4th Cir.1981). In analyzing this distinction, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has utilized the "discretionary/ministeri......
-
Burns v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
...the operation of a police force is not a governmental function, then a governmental function may not exist.") (quoting Martin v. WMATA , 667 F.2d 435, 436 (4th Cir. 1981) ).Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that WMATA was entitled to sovereign......
-
Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham
...enacted by Congress and adopted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. See Martin v. WMATA, 667 F.2d 435 (4th Cir.1981). By signing the Compact, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia extended their sovereign immunity to WMATA. Beatty......