Lopez v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 29 November 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. WGC-15-4008
• Citation: Lopez v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., Civil Action No. WGC-15-4008 (D. Md. Nov 29, 2016)
• Parties: MARY JESSENIA LOPEZ Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

MARY JESSENIA LOPEZ Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Defendant.

Civil Action No. WGC-15-4008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

November 29, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Mary Jessenia Lopez ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Lopez") brought this action against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("Defendant" or "WMATA") alleging negligence and seeking $30,000.00 in damages. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in the case and the entry of a final judgment. This case was thereafter referred to the undersigned. See ECF No. 10. Pending before the court and ready for resolution is WMATA's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15). Ms. Lopez filed an Opposition (ECF No. 18) and WMATA filed a Reply (ECF No. 19). No hearing is deemed necessary and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).

BACKGROUND¹

On the morning of November 13, 2012, about 6:00 a.m., Ms. Lopez stood at a bus stop on Merrimac Drive in Hyattsville, Maryland, awaiting the arrival of the K6 Metro Bus. It was raining lightly or, as Ms. Lopez describes, "a little bit." She was the only individual at the bus stop. Ms. Lopez took the K6 Metro Bus routinely. The only item she carried was a lunch bag.She wore tennis shoes. During her July 19, 2016 deposition, in response to questions by WMATA's counsel, Ms. Lopez described the sequence of events.

Q Just from the time you got to the doors until the time you paid your fare, was there anything unusual about the way you boarded the bus that day?

A No. I paid my fare that day and once I paid [the bus driver] took off hard, bruskly, and I went backwards.

Q Where was your - when you boarded the bus were there any seats available?

A Yes, there were.

Q Where was your intended seat?

A I just got off - I just got on and I fell, I hadn't take[n] a seat yet. After I fell I took a seat.

Q How far back had you made it before you fell?

A How much? What do you mean?

Q How far behind the driver were you when you fell?

A For three steps in front.

Q Three steps behind the driver?

A Um-hum, three steps when I fell and I couldn't stop myself.

Q Were you holding on to anything as you walked back?

A No, because I hadn't yet reached the part where they - there is to hold on to.

Q Is it the same three steps behind the driver when the bus started moving?

A No, the bus started moving when I entered. I took three steps and then fell. She was going like this, fast.

Q Had you paid your fare when the bus started moving?

A Yes, I just paid and all of a sudden she took off, there was no time.

Q Had you taken any steps between the time you paid and the time when the bus started moving?

A I paid, I paid. I started walking and she took off, she didn't give me time to walk.

Q Was the floor of the bus wet?

A Yes.

Q Could you see that the floor of the bus was wet when you boarded the bus?

A No, I didn't realize because when I got in all of a sudden I didn't realize if it was wet.

Q But it was raining at the time you boarded the bus?

A Yes.

Q Can you tell me what you think caused you to fall?

A I think it was that she drove too quickly, that she drove too bruskly and didn't give me time.

Q Now, when you fell you fell backwards, correct?

A Yes.

Q And you hurt your wrist?

A Yes. This went up and it broke this here.

Q You broke your left wrist?

A Yes.

ECF No. 18-3 at 5 (Lopez Dep. 14:6 - 16:21). Ms. Lopez testified a female passenger observed her fall; this passenger picked up Ms. Lopez's jacket, and reported the incident to the bus driver. Ms. Lopez does not know the name of the female passenger. According to Ms. Lopez, after thisfemale passenger reported what happened, the bus driver stopped the bus at the next bus stop. Id. at 5 (Lopez Dep. 17:4-9, 16-22).

Carolyn Stieff was operating the K6 Metro Bus on the morning of November 13, 2012. She does not recall many details concerning Ms. Lopez. She completed a WMATA incident report identifying 5:33 a.m. as the time of Ms. Lopez's incident. See ECF No. 18-4 at 4 (Stieff Dep. 11:9 - 13:4). On this report Ms. Stieff described noticing a female passenger holding her arm. She walked back to where the woman was seated and asked if she needed help. Id. at 4 (Stieff Dep. 12:15 - 13:1). Ms. Stieff called for an ambulance. See ECF No. 18-3 at 6 (Lopez Dep. 18:1-2).

During her July 19, 2016 deposition Ms. Stieff recalled it was raining that morning, and the floor of the bus was wet as passengers boarded the bus, tracking in rain. Before Ms. Lopez boarded the bus, Ms. Stieff does not recall any passenger having difficulty maintaining their balance on the bus. The following exchange occurred between Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Stieff about the speed at which Ms. Stieff purportedly traveled when she pulled away from the bus stop after Ms. Lopez boarded the bus.

Q Now, as you sit here today, can you tell us how fast you pulled off from that bus stop that Ms. Lopez, from which Ms. Lopez embarked on, on the bus after she --

A I eased away from the stop. I don't pull off --

Q Okay

A -- per se. I ease away from the bus stop and then where that - that was it. I ease away, was no speed.

Q Okay. Now, so you say that there was, there was no speed, correct?

A No, there wasn't.

Q And you say that you eased away?

A Yes.

Q How do you recall that today, how do you recall how you --

A Because the bus stop where I stop and another stop are very close together, so, and traffic, so I know.

ECF No. 18-4 at 6 (Stieff Dep. 19:4 - 20:1).

Ms. Lopez's fall was captured by the Drive-Cam on WMATA's Metro Bus. According to WMATA this videographic evidence shows both of Ms. Lopez's feet were on the level surface of the bus and she had paid her fare before the bus moved. Further, WMATA claims the videographic evidence proves Ms. Stieff did not operate the bus in an abnormal or extraordinary manner as she drove the bus from the bus stop. ECF No. 15 at 5 ¶¶ 9-10. Contrarily, Ms. Lopez contends the videographic evidence creates a jury question, specifically, "whether or not the bus driver's operation of the bus was negligent under all of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, causing the bus to lurch forwards while the Plaintiff had not yet reached a place of safety in the bus where she could brace herself from a sudden, violent jerking motion." ECF No. 18-1 at 2 ¶ 11.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action based on federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, specifically, pursuant to Section 81 of the WMATA Compact, Section 80 Stat. 1350, Pub. L. 89-774 (November 6, 1996), as outlined in Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 10-204(81), which states:

The United States District Courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, of all actions brought by or against the Authority and to enforce subpoenas issued under this title. Any such actioninitiated in a State or District of Columbia court shall be removable to the appropriate United States District Court in the manner provided by Act of June 25, 1948, as amended (28 U.S.C. 1446).

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The court notes WMATA removed this case from state court to federal court on December 31, 2015. See ECF No. 1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment will be granted only if there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In other words, if there clearly exist factual issues "that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party," then summary judgment is inappropriate. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; see also Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987); Morrison v. Nissan Motor Co., 601 F.2d 139, 141 (4th Cir. 1979); Stevens v. Howard D. Johnson Co., 181 F.2d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 1950). The moving party bears the burden of showing no genuine issue as to any material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Pulliam Inv. Co., 810 F.2d at 1286 (citing Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979)).

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Gill v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 773 F.2d 592, 595 (4th Cir. 1985). A party who bears the burden of proof on a particular claim must factually support each element of his or her claim. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element . . . necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

On those issues where the nonmoving party will have the burden of proof, it is that party's responsibility to confront the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit or other similar evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. However, "'[a] mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to create a fact issue.'" Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 958-59 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Seago v. North Carolina Theaters, Inc., 42 F.R.D. 627, 632 (E.D.N.C. 1966), aff'd, 388 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 959 (1968)). There must be "sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

WMATA contends no genuine issues of material fact exist and therefore it is entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, WMATA argues Ms. Lopez bears the burden of proving negligence. She must demonstrate the movement was not normal, usual or incidental to the normal operation of a bus, but instead was abnormal...