Government Liability

Dealing with Sovereign Immunity After an Accident in Washington, D.C.

December 27, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The law allows people injured in an accident to bring a civil negligence lawsuit against the responsible party. There are, however, some key exceptions that Washington, D.C. personal injury plaintiffs ought to understand when preparing to file a lawsuit. One of the most important is sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity.

The basic idea behind sovereign immunity is that states and governments are protected from negligence lawsuits arising out of their official duties. For D.C. plaintiffs, this means that there are some instances in which, when the government is responsible for their injuries, a plaintiff will not have legal recourse to recover compensation.

A recent Virginia appellate case illustrates the importance of sovereign immunity. According to the court’s written opinion, the case arose as a wrongful death lawsuit against the city for failing to adequately maintain fire hydrants. The deceased victim was killed in a fire when the firefighters, unable to get the needed water from the fire hydrant closest to the burning house, had to go to the next closest hydrant. This second fire hydrant was around 1,000 feet away, and by the time that the firefighters were able to get the necessary water, the victim had died.

Filing Claims Against the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. Personal Injury Cases

November 5, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Bringing a claim against the federal government complicates what may seem like a simple Washington, D.C. (D.C.) personal injury case. If the federal government is a defendant in a D.C. personal injury case, it will almost always argue that it is protected from suit for claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The Federal Tort Claims Act allows individuals to file claims against the federal government and its agencies for certain wrongful conduct committed by federal officials. In an FTCA claim, a plaintiff must show that their injury was caused by a federal employee, that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, that the employee acted wrongfully, and that the act caused the plaintiff’s damages.

Certain claims can be barred, depending on the nature of the act. If a claim is based on the act or failure to act in a discretionary function or duty, the claim is barred. Determining whether an act was a discretionary function or duty requires a determination first of whether the actions involved an element of judgment or choice. If so, the second determination is whether the judgment is one that the discretionary function was intended to protect, as a decision based on public policy considerations. It is only if both determinations are answered affirmatively that an act would fall under the discretionary function, and the government would be protected from suit. If the government claims that it is immune from suit under the FTCA, the government has to prove that an exception applies

Washington, D.C. Car Accidents Caused by Dangerous Roads

May 28, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Anyone who has spent time driving around the District of Columbia will not be surprised to hear that poor road conditions and dangerously designed roads are among the common causes of Washington, D.C. car accidents. However, unlike other Washington, D.C. car accident claims, a plaintiff’s claim that a dangerous road contributed to a crash is not filed against another motorist, but against the government entity responsible for designing or maintaining the road.

Washington, D.C. defective road claims may be based on several theories, including:

dangerous design of a road;

Court Determines Student Failed to Establish Exception to School’s Government Immunity in Recent Personal Injury Case

February 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Aside from providing students with an education, Washington, D.C. schools have a very important job in ensuring that students are safe during the day. When a school administration fails to take adequate precautions to provide a safe environment for students, and a student is injured as a result, the school may be held civilly liable for the injuries sustained by the student through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit.

That being said, since schools provide a government function, they may be entitled to official government immunity in some cases. A recent case illustrates how one court analyzed a student’s failure-to-supervise case that was brought against school administration.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant school. One day, the plaintiff was waiting in the school’s auditorium for school to begin with approximately 70 other students. One teacher was assigned to supervise the students as they ate breakfast and waited for the morning’s classes to begin.

Appellate Court Determines Teacher Was Immune from Liability in Recent Failure-to-Supervise Case

February 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a student who died while the teacher was out of the room. The case required the court to determine if the teacher – acting as an official government employee – was entitled to immunity. Finding that the school’s policy regarding the supervision of students left room for the exercise of discretion, the court determined that the teacher was entitled to immunity and dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The case is important for Washington, D.C. personal injury plaintiffs because it illustrates the type of analysis in which courts engage when reviewing cases filed against a government official, employee, or agency.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a young boy who died while attending school. According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the boy fell to the ground while roughhousing with another student. At the time, the teacher had stepped out of the classroom and was not present. However, she asked a teacher in a neighboring room to keep an eye on the students before she stepped out.

Government Not Liable for Rope Swing Accident Occurring on Municipal Property

October 17, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this week, an appellate court in New Hampshire issued a written opinion in a personal injury lawsuit alleging that a town was liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while playing near a lake that was owned by the town. The case presents relevant issues for Washington, D.C. personal injury victims insofar as it discusses the state’s recreational use statute, which bears a close resemblance to other recreational use statutes in states like neighboring Maryland and Virginia.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s son was playing with a group of friends in a lake that was owned and maintained by the town where the lake was located. The plaintiff’s son was waiting near the water while his friend used a rope swing to fling himself into the water. The plaintiff’s son was attempting to slap the feet of his friend before he reached the water, when the two boys collided, causing the plaintiff’s son to sustain serious injuries.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the town, claiming that it was negligent in allowing the presence of the rope swing and in failing to place warning signs. The town responded by asserting recreational use immunity. Recreational use statutes apply to landowners who open up their property for the general enjoyment of others, and they confer immunity from some personal injury lawsuits that occur as a result of the use of the property.

Government Liability for Washington, D.C. Accidents

October 10, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Property owners have a duty to maintain a safe location for those whom they invite onto their land. When a private landowner or business fails to safely maintain their property, and a visitor is injured as a result, the injured visitor may be able to pursue compensation for their injuries through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit.

Government entities also have a similar duty to maintain safe premises. However, recovering compensation for injuries that occur on government-owned land can be more difficult, since issues of immunity may prevent a case from proceeding as it would against a private party.

A recent case illustrates how an accident victim may be prevented from bringing a case against a government entity. While the case is a good example of a situation in which liability was found not to be appropriate, accident victims should not be discouraged and should individually consult with a dedicated personal injury attorney to discuss their case and any potential claims.

Court Applies Recreational-Use Immunity in Public Park Slip-and-Fall Case

July 4, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this year, an appellate court in Alabama issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that required the court to discuss the state’s recreational-use statute and determine if the defendant, a government entity, was entitled to immunity. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that an exception to the general grant of immunity applied, and therefore the government entity was determined to be immune from liability.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was attending a July 4th celebration at a park that was owned and operated by the defendant city. The plaintiff arrived at the park by car and parked in a designated parking space. At the border of the parking lot were large vertical poles used to designate the parking area. These poles had holes at the top so that cables could be run through, connecting the poles. While on the day of the plaintiff’s injury there were no cables running through the poles, there were diagonal crossbars present used as support beams.

As the plaintiff exited her vehicle, she negotiated her way around the poles without incident. The plaintiff attended the firework display. However, on the way back to her car, she tripped on one of the diagonal support bars connecting the poles. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, arguing that the poles and the attached support beams constituted a dangerous hazard and that the city should have warned park-goers.

Court Finds that Recreational Use Statute Protected City in Lawsuit Stemming from Baseball Game Injury

March 28, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued a written opinion in which the court had to apply the recreational use statute to determine whether the defendant city could be held liable for injuries occurring at a recreational baseball game. Ultimately, the court held that the city was entitled to immunity and that the plaintiff’s argument that the city had prior notice of the field’s dangerous condition was not able to be considered on appeal because it was not argued below.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case were the parents of a boy who was playing a recreational game of baseball in a park owned and operated by the defendant city. During the game, the plaintiffs’ son slid into home plate, and his ankle and lower leg got lodged under the plate. When their son tried to stand up after the slide, he broke his leg in two places.

The plaintiffs filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, arguing that it was negligent in maintaining the baseball diamond. In a pre-trial motion for summary judgment, the city argued that it was entitled to immunity from the lawsuit under the recreational use statute.

City Not Immune from Liability in Case Involving Stop Sign Obscured by Overgrown Foliage

January 17, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Late last year, an appellate court in Ohio issued a written opinion affirming an intermediate appellate court’s decision that a city that allowed a stop sign to become overgrown with foliage was not entitled to governmental immunity. In the case, Bibler v. Stevenson, the court concluded that the city was not entitled to immunity because the stop sign was placed due to a state law requiring stop signs to be placed at intersections of “through highways.”

The Facts of the Case

Bibler was injured in a car accident when another motorist, Stevenson, allegedly ran a stop sign. Stevenson claimed that he did not see the stop sign, and the responding police officer agreed that the sign was overgrown with foliage and not visible to approaching motorists.

Bibler later filed a personal injury lawsuit against both Stevenson and the City of Findlay, the local government of the place where the accident had occurred. Bibler settled with Stevenson, and the case proceeded against the city only. In a pre-trial motion, the city argued that it was entitled to government immunity because under state law, governments are only liable for negligence involving “public roads,” which do not include traffic-control devices. Bibler agreed with that general statement but argued there was an exception when the traffic-control device was by the state’s “manual of uniform traffic control devices.”