E-Alert Case Updates
Video contradicting Plaintiff’s theory of liability sufficient for summary judgment
Hall v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Plaintiff Hall was a passenger on a bus being operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”). Plaintiff alleged that as she was alighting from the bus, the bus operator began to close the door on her, “pushing” her out of the bus. Plaintiff lost her balance, fell, and alleged injury. Plaintiff filed suit against WMATA for her injuries. During the course of discovery, WMATA produced a videotape of the incident. In Judge Grimm’s words:
Id. Based upon this video evidence, WMATA moved for summary judgment. In opposition, Plaintiff argued that the video did not demonstrate that the Plaintiff tripped, and could reasonably be viewed to show that “the Plaintiff reaching out of reflex, believing that the door was going to shut on her and as the door opened back up, she fell.” Id.
Judge Grimm noted that the standard of summary judgment prevented granting the motion if there were material facts in dispute. He also observed, however, that the Supreme Court had set a precedent in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007), that when there was video evidence that is not open to more than one interpretation and contradicts the non-movant’s assertions, the Court “view[s] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Harris, 550 U.S. at 381. Judge Grimm then held that the facts as clearly depicted by the video tape did not support Plaintiff’s theory of liability as related in her Answers to Interrogatories.
Hall, at 3. Judge Grimm proceeded to enter summary judgment in favor of WMATA and against Plaintiff Hall, without the necessity of a hearing.
|©2008 Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|