Joyce Bagley v. WMATA, No. 09-1330 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1330 JOYCE F. BAGLEY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant Appellee, and KONE, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07cv-00893-RWT) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 13, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick J. Christmas, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Gerard J. Stief, Senior Associate General Counsel, Carol B. O Keeffe, General Counsel, Mark F. Sullivan, Deputy General Counsel, Michael K. Guss, Assistant General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN Appellee. AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joyce striking the F. Bagley testimony appeals of Washington Metropolitan motion reconsideration, for her Area the expert, Transit and district court s granting Authority granting summary order Appellee ( WMATA ) s judgment to WMATA in Bagley s negligence action arising from a trip and fall incident at the Foggy Bottom Metrorail station in Washington, D.C. Bagley argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to WMATA. Finding no error, we affirm. We review de novo the district court s adverse grant of summary judgment and construe the facts in the light most favorable to Bagley, the non-moving party. Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). To survive summary judgment, Bagley was required to produce evidence from which a reasonable juror may conclude [not only] that a certain hazard caused the injury [but also] that [WMATA] had actual or constructive notice of that hazard. Mixon v. Washington Metro. Area 58 Transit Auth., 959 A.2d 55, (D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and the parties briefs and conclude that summary judgment for WMATA was proper in light 3 of the lack constructive of evidence notice of a causing Bagley s injuries. court s order. that WMATA defective had either condition in actual the or station Accordingly, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
