Briggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding expert testimony required to prove standard for lighting temporary construction walkway in Metrorail station
• stating that “generalized references” to standards are not sufficient and that “the expert must proffer ‘a specific, articulable (and articulated
• observing that “[t]he D.C. Court of Appeals has required expert testimony in a number of cases that, on first blush, appear to be within the realm of common knowledge” and citing examples
• granting the defendant summary judgment because the plaintiffs expert “offered only his own opinion in attempting to describe national standards that might be applicable to establish standards of care in this case”
• deriving the contemporary standard from D.C. cases decided between 1984 and 2000
• “while internal regulations may be 'admissible as bearing on the standard of care,’ admission at trial of the WMATA manuals alone would be insufficient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).