The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has weighed in on a complex case involving a wrongful death claim against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The court was asked to clarify the legal responsibilities of a common carrier, like WMATA, when a passenger is injured after inadvertently entering a non-public area and becomes a trespasser. The court’s decision provides important guidance on the duty of care owed to individuals in such situations.
The Facts of the Case
The case stems from the tragic death of Okiemute C. Whiteru, who fell behind a parapet at the Judiciary Square Metro Station. Mr. Whiteru, visibly intoxicated, stumbled down an escalator and then attempted to lean on a narrow parapet. He fell over the ledge into a trough containing electrical and lighting equipment, sustaining a spinal fracture and ultimately dying from asphyxiation. His body wasn’t discovered for four days.
Mr. Whiteru’s parents and estate sued WMATA, alleging negligence for failing to discover Mr. Whiteru in time to provide life-saving aid. WMATA’s operating procedures required station managers to conduct platform inspections at regular intervals. The central question became: What duty of care did WMATA owe Mr. Whiteru after he fell into the non-public area?
The Legal Question and the Court’s Answer
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit certified a question to the D.C. Court of Appeals: Under D.C. law, can a plaintiff, who, as a passenger on a station platform, involuntarily falls into a non-public area and sustains injuries, recover for the exacerbation of those injuries if the common carrier knew or had reason to know of his injuries?
The D.C. Court of Appeals answered with a qualified “yes.” The court clarified that while Mr. Whiteru, after falling into the restricted area, became a trespasser, WMATA still had a duty of care, but the extent of that duty depended on whether WMATA knew or had reason to know of his presence and condition.
Passenger vs. Trespasser: The Initial Status
The court first addressed whether Mr. Whiteru was a “passenger” or a “trespasser” at the time of his injury. The court found that Mr. Whiteru, despite being a paying customer on the platform, became a trespasser when he fell into the non-public area. The court emphasized that it didn’t matter if the trespass was accidental or unintentional; once he entered an area where he wasn’t authorized to be, he was a trespasser.
The court cited precedent, including the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which defines a trespasser as someone who enters or remains on land without permission. The court highlighted that this definition applies regardless of how the person entered the restricted area, even if it was unintentional.
The Duty of Care Owed to a Trespasser
The court then addressed the critical issue: What duty does a common carrier owe to a trespasser? Generally, landowners and common carriers owe a very limited duty to trespassers: to refrain from “willful or wanton” conduct that causes injury. “Willful or wanton” conduct generally implies reckless disregard for the safety of others.
However, the court recognized an important exception: If the common carrier *knows* of the trespasser’s presence, the duty of care increases. The court stated that a common carrier owes a “discovered” trespasser (one whose presence is known) a duty of ordinary care to avoid injuring them. This includes a duty to take reasonable affirmative action, which may include providing aid, if the common carrier knows the trespasser is injured, trapped, or otherwise in peril.
The court emphasized that the “knowledge” required wasn’t simply what the carrier *should have known* through reasonable inspections. Instead, the carrier must have actual knowledge of the trespasser or knowledge of facts that would give the carrier a basis for believing a trespasser is present. The court distinguished this from a “should have known” standard, which would impose a higher duty of care.
Applying the Principles to the Whiteru Case
The court’s ruling provides a framework for analyzing the Whiteru case. WMATA, as a common carrier, owed Mr. Whiteru a duty of care. Once he became a trespasser, the duty of care was limited. However, if WMATA or its employees *knew* that Mr. Whiteru was behind the parapet and injured, they had a duty to exercise ordinary care and provide reasonable assistance.
The court did not decide whether the required “knowledge” standard was met in this case. That determination is left to the federal court. The court’s decision clarifies that the duty of care depended on WMATA’s actual knowledge of Mr. Whiteru’s condition, not what it should have known.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
* A passenger who inadvertently enters a non-public area of a common carrier’s property becomes a trespasser.
* The duty of care owed to a trespasser is generally limited, requiring only that the carrier refrain from willful or wanton conduct.
* If the common carrier *knows* of a trespasser’s presence and that the trespasser is injured, trapped, or in peril, the carrier has a duty to exercise ordinary care, which may include providing reasonable aid.
* The “knowledge” standard requires actual knowledge or knowledge of facts that would reasonably lead the carrier to believe a trespasser is present. A “should have known” standard is not sufficient.
This ruling provides important legal guidance for future cases involving injuries on public transportation and clarifies the responsibilities of common carriers toward individuals who may be injured on their property.