McKethean 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 that a defendant has a duty of protection for intervening criminal acts only if the criminal act was sufficiently foreseeable
• holding that there was no “special duty” to “prospective passengers” injured while waiting for a bus
• holding that WMATA’s decision not to relocate a bus stop involved safety planning and weighing of various alternatives, in the absence of specific safety guidelines, which was immune from liability
• holding that WMATA does not owe a special duty of care as a common carrier to non-passengers, including those who are waiting to board at a bus stop
• stating that “[a]n intervening negligent or criminal act breaks the chain of causation if it is not reasonably foreseeable”
• explaining that “that a specific crime, ‘rather than merely harm in general,’ [must be] foreseeable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).