Cobb v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

CHARLES W. COBB, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-3522 (BAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

July 13, 2021

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Charles Cobb alleges that on the evening of December 6, 2019, he slipped on a foreign substance on the ground in the Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro station, fell awkwardly to the floor, and badly injured his left leg. Compl. ¶ 16-17, 25-26, ECF No. 1. As he lay on the ground in great pain, unable to move, and calling for help, employees of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA") at the station allegedly did nothing to help him. See id. ¶¶ 21-22, 38, 47. Eventually, after a friend who was present with him at the time of the fall phoned for help, medical assistance arrived, and plaintiff was transported to a hospital and underwent emergency on his leg. See id. ¶¶ 22-29. In the instant lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that WMATA was negligent in failing both to notice and clean the substance that caused his slip and fall, and to summon medical assistance for him after his injury, and he seeks to recover damages for the injury he suffered to his knee as well as emotional damages. See id. ¶¶ 36-49; id. at 12. Pending before the Court is WMATA's Partial Motion to Dismiss, based on arguments that some of plaintiff's claims are not adequately pled and that overlap between two of plaintiff's claims could lead to the award of duplicative damages. See Def.'s Partial Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, WMATA's motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Pertinent background underlying the instant lawsuit is described, followed by review of the brief procedural history.

A. Factual Background

On the evening of December 6, 2019, plaintiff left work and met a friend and former co-worker to ride the Metro home together. Comp. ¶ 13. They proceeded together to the Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro stop and arrived between 9:00 and 9:30 PM. See id. ¶ 14. The pair descended the escalator into the underground Gallery Place station and walked toward the turnstiles leading to the Green Line. See id. ¶ 15. As plaintiff approached the turnstiles, however, his friend saw him "suddenly and unexpectedly lurch" and saw his "legs fly out from under him." Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff "suddenly fell to the floor," "landing in a hurdler[']s position with one leg extended forward" and his left leg "bent awkwardly under him." Id. ¶ 17. He "gave out a cry of pain," id. ¶ 17, could not move his legs, id. ¶ 18, and "was not able to move or get up," id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff and his friend both called for help, but none came. See id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff's friend also looked into the nearby station kiosk, in the hope of finding a WMATA employee who could help plaintiff, but did not see anybody in the kiosk. See id. ¶ 19.

Approximately fifteen or twenty minutes after plaintiff's fall, a single WMATA employee arrived on the scene but, on seeing plaintiff, "backed away and said he could not help," id. ¶ 20, instead telling plaintiff and his friend that he would call a supervisor, see id. ¶ 21. Shortly thereafter a WMATA supervisor arrived, looked at plaintiff, and went into a nearby office. See id. Plaintiff, still lying immobile on the ground in front of the turnstile, then saw the supervisor and the first WMATA employee come and go from the office, but neither advised him whether help was on the way. Id. ¶ 22. Eventually plaintiff's friend used her cell phone to call WMATA herself and request assistance. See id.

An Emergency Medical Technician ("EMT"), ambulance, and Metropolitan Police Department officer then arrived on the scene. See id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff was lifted onto a stretcher, his leg was straightened, and he was taken to Howard University Hospital, id. ¶¶ 24-25, where doctors determined that plaintiff "had torn sections of his knee cap that keep the patella from moving involuntarily" and required immediate surgery, id. ¶ 28. After plaintiff was lifted off the ground and placed onto a stretcher, his friend "saw what appeared to be a foreign object/substance under [p]laintiff's left leg at or near the location where he had fallen." Id. ¶ 25. She "did not touch or remove the object" but "noticed that [it] was near the location where [p]laintiff had stepped before he lost his footing" and fell to the floor. Id. ¶ 26.

The following day, plaintiff underwent surgery on his left knee. See id. ¶ 29. He continues to receive medical treatment for the injury and is engaged in physical therapy to rehabilitate his leg. See id. ¶¶ 29, 33. As a result of the injury, he has lost time at work, id. ¶ 29, and also suffers "significant enduring emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, fear and shame," "severe insomnia, persistent recurring nightmares, and acute anxiety," for which plaintiff has sought medical treatment, id. ¶ 41.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 4, 2020, alleging two torts, under the common law of the District of Columbia, against WMATA. First, he alleges negligent infliction of emotion distress ("NIED") (Count One), arguing that "[t]he negligent acts and omissions of . . . WMATA caused serious emotional distress to [p]laintiff that a reasonable person in [d]efendant's position would have foreseen under the circumstances," id. ¶ 37, specifically citing the fact that the WMATA employee and supervisor "observed [p]laintiff laying [sic] on the . . . floor after his fall" but "did nothing to assist him," id. ¶ 38. Second, he alleges negligence (Count Two), claiming both that WMATA "had the duty to exercise ordinary care under thecircumstances to keep the Gallery Place station reasonably safe" but failed to comply with that duty, id. ¶ 43, and that WMATA was required "to take reasonable action to give its passengers . . . first aid, after it knows or has reason to know that they are injured," id. ¶ 47, which duty WMATA also failed to fulfill, see id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff seeks at least $500,000 in damages, in addition to costs, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees. See id. at 12.

WMATA filed the pending Partial Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 2021, moving for dismissal for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of plaintiff's NIED claim and his negligence claim to the extent it is based on "negligent failure to render aid," Def.'s Mem. Supp. Partial Mot. Dismiss ("Def.'s Mem.") at 1, ECF No. 10.¹ That motion is fully briefed, see Def.'s Mem.; Pl.'s Opp'n Def.'s Partial Mot. Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 12; Def.'s Reply Supp. Partial Mot. Dismiss ("Def.'s Reply"), ECF No. 14, and is now ripe for resolution. For the reasons set out below, WMATA's motion is denied.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "the 'complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 757-58 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see also Bowman v. Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2017). A facially plausible claim pleads facts that are not "'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" but that also "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 557 (2007)); see also Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must consider the whole complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, "even if doubtful in fact," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, Nurriddin v. Bolden, 818 F.3d 751, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also Williams v. Lew, 819 F.3d 466, 472 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Courts do not "assume the truth of legal conclusions, nor do [they] 'accept inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.'" Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).

III. DISCUSSION

WMATA seeks dismissal of plaintiff's NIED claim, arguing that the claim impermissibly seeks duplicative damages and that plaintiff has not adequately pled each of its elements, as well as his negligence claim based on WMATA's alleged failure to help plaintiff, on the basis that WMATA did not breach any duty owed to plaintiff. These arguments are discussed in turn, and are rejected.

A. Plaintiff's NIED Claim

WMATA argues that plaintiff's NIED claim should be dismissed for two reasons: first, the recovery for emotional injury sought in this claim is already compensable through plaintiff's negligence claim, and, second, plaintiff has failed adequately to plead that the emotional injury was sufficiently severe. See Def.'s Mem. at 2-4.

1. Possibility of Duplicative Damages

WMATA first argues that plaintiff's "claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is inapplicable because his claim involves a physical injury and damages for emotional distress are already available to [p]laintiff, if proven, vis-a-vis his standard negligence claim," id. at 2, and that, as such, plaintiff's NIED claim "is merely a request for ancillary or parasiticdamages for the mental distress experienced as a result of his physical injury," id. at 2-3. According to WMATA, then, since any damages for plaintiff's emotional injury are recoverable pursuant to his negligence claim, "[a]llowing him to also recover for emotional distress under a separate count would invite the award of duplicative relief," and so the NIED claim should be dismissed. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff's negligence claim and NIED claim are both based on WMATA's alleged failure to call for aid. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 9 ("Here, the legally protected interest that [serves as the basis for plain...