Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1089 September Term, 2009

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. VERONICA TINSLEY

Krauser, C.J., Hotten, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Krauser, C.J.

Filed: November 30, 2011

After slipping and falling on a wet train platform at a Metrorail station, Veronica Tinsley, appellee, brought a negligence action, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"), appellant, for the injuries she sustained as a result of that fall. After a jury found in favor of Tinsley and awarded her damages, WMATA noted this appeal, presenting three issues,1 one of which is whether Tinsley's suit was barred by governmental immunity. Because we hold that it was so barred, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court. As that decision, in effect, concludes this litigation, we do not reach either of the other two issues raised by WMATA. BACKGROUND At about 4:45 p.m. on December 19, 2007, Tinsley lost her footing on a train platform at the Metrorail stop in Cheverly, Maryland, and fractured her right ankle. At trial, Tinsley testified that, when she arrived by train at the station, the entire floor of the platform was wet. Upon leaving the train, she did not see any warning cones, but, nonetheless, walked carefully toward the elevator. As she neared the elevator, she saw a "wet floor sign that was tucked back by the side of the elevator." Then, finding the elevator out of service, she walked towards the escalator. As she did, her left foot slipped out from under her and she fell. Tinsley introduced into evidence the redacted videotaped deposition of Francis Mullen, an architect accepted by the court "as an expert in the area of architecture and

The other two issues raised by WMATA were: "[w]hether the [c]ircuit [c]ourt erred in denying WMATA's motion for judgment where [Tinsley] failed to make a prima facie case of negligence" and "admitted that she was fairly warned of the wet platform" before she fell; and "[w]hether the [c]ircuit [c]ourt erred in allowing the testimony of [Tinsley's expert witness] that questioned WMATA's immunized selection of cleaning products."

1

safety." Mullen deponed that, based on "deposition testimony"

Download WMATA v. Tinsley.pdf

Maryland Law