A federal judge in the District of Columbia has granted summary judgment to the company that owns and operates the MCI Center in Washington, D.C. in a negligence case.
Specifically, the judge found that a fan attending a hockey game at the Center, who sued after she was injured in a freak accident, failed to provide sufficient expert testimony as well as demonstrate that there was anything the Center could have done to avoid the accident.
The accident occurred on January 11, 2002 at a Washington Capitals hockey game. The plaintiff was sitting in the upper deck when a fan, a few rows above her, lost his balance and slid back-first down several rows into her, seriously injuring her back.
The plaintiff sued, claiming that Washington Sports breached its duty by failing to protect her “from dangerous conditions of which they either were aware or should have been aware; failing to use reasonable care in maintaining, supervising and managing the dangers in its facility; and failing to supervise and control its patrons.”
Washington Sports then moved for summary judgment.
Immediately, the court determined that the plaintiff is barred from pursuing her negligent design theory. “Fatal to this assertion is the fact that plaintiff has not filed a Rule 26(b)(4) statement identifying an expert prepared to establish the appropriate standard of care Washington Sports should have met based on the Center’s physical layout. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4).
“Without an appropriate standard of care being delineated by an engineering or safety expert familiar with arena seating, the jury would be forced to engage in speculation as to how Washington Sports was deficient in managing the alleged dangers in their facility. This sort of speculation is specifically prohibited by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Griggs, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18413 (citing Toy v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1988)).”
Turning to the plaintiff’s negligence claim based on a failure to control the crowd, the court reached a similar conclusion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate expert testimony.
“While plaintiff designated an expert in facilities management, ‘to provide expert testimony in the areas of management, staffing, and security of sports facilities and at sporting events as well as crowd management at such facilities and events,’ no opinion or evidence regarding crowd control has been placed on the record.
“In fact, there is no affidavit, report, or indication of any kind that the designated expert had, at the close of discovery, undertaken any assessment of either the incident or the Center. Thus, even though plaintiff designated a crowd control expert, she has provided no opinion or information from which a reasonable juror could extract the appropriate standard of care.”
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s failure “to provide an expert opinion regarding crowd control is fatal to any negligence theory resting on that claim.
“Further, even if plaintiff’s failure to provide an expert opinion was not definitive, summary judgment must be granted on this issue as there is absolutely no evidence from which a jury could conclude Washington Sports breached its duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-324.”
Sarah Weber Brisbin v. Washington Sports And Entertainment, Ltd, T/A MCI Center, et al; Dist. D.C.; Civil Action No. 04-0643 (RCL) ; 2/21/06
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Steven Richard Freeman, Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A., Towson, MD. (for defendant) Jonathan Eric Agin, Taylor Sylla & Agin, LLP, Washington, DC; Angela Williams Russell, James Charles Mehigan, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Washington, DC.
