Hurt on Metro: Your Rights as a WMATA Passenger in the Whiteru Era
Hundreds of thousands of people ride Metro every day, and most of the time the system delivers them safely. But when it doesn't — a fall on a broken escalator, a train door injury, a bus collision, an assault a station manager ignored — injured riders discover that suing WMATA is unlike suing anyone else in the region. And just one year ago, the D.C. Circuit handed Metro passengers one of the most important decisions in years.
WMATA is a creature of compact — and that changes everything
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created by an interstate compact among Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, consented to by Congress. The compact — not ordinary tort law — defines when WMATA can be sued. Section 80 of the compact makes WMATA liable for its torts "in the conduct of any proprietary function," but preserves immunity for governmental functions. Courts have translated that line into a familiar test: WMATA is immune for discretionary decisions (policy-level choices about resources, security priorities, system design) but answerable for ministerial conduct — the day-to-day operation of trains, buses, escalators, and stations.
In practice, that means the routine injury case — a negligently driven bus, a slippery platform, a mis-leveled train — can go forward, while claims attacking WMATA's high-level policy choices often cannot. Drawing that line is where these cases are won and lost, and it is the first thing we analyze in any Metro injury claim.
The duty Metro owes its passengers
WMATA is a common carrier. Under District of Columbia law, a carrier owes its passengers a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances — and the circumstances of rail transit (speed, crowds, electrified track, platform edges) make reasonable care a demanding standard. That duty includes the safe operation of vehicles and stations, and, as the courts confirmed last year, something more: a duty to come to the aid of a passenger the carrier knows or should know is injured and helpless.
Whiteru: contributory negligence is not a free pass to ignore the injured
In Whiteru v. WMATA, 25 F.4th 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2022), decided February 11, 2022, an intoxicated passenger fell behind a station-platform parapet late at night and was gravely injured. He was not found — despite required station inspections — and died days later of his injuries, although it was undisputed he would have survived if discovered in time. The trial court threw the case out on contributory negligence, the doctrine that bars recovery for a plaintiff whose own carelessness contributed to his injury.
The D.C. Circuit reversed. Under DC law, a passenger's contributory negligence does not defeat a claim that the carrier breached its distinct duty to aid a passenger it knows or has reason to know is hurt and cannot help himself. That duty arises after — and independent of — whatever carelessness put the passenger in peril. In a jurisdiction where contributory negligence still extinguishes most claims, this is a critical protection: however you came to be lying injured on WMATA property, Metro cannot simply fail to find you or fail to help you.
We wrote about Whiteru when it came down; a year later it stands as the leading statement of a carrier's failure-to-aid liability in the District.
Suing WMATA vs. suing the District: know the differences
| Question | Claim against WMATA | Claim against the District of Columbia |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-suit notice required? | No § 12-309 notice requirement | Written notice within 6 months (D.C. Code § 12-309) |
| Where can the case be heard? | Federal district court has original jurisdiction under the compact, concurrent with local courts | D.C. Superior Court (typically) |
| Punitive damages? | Not available against WMATA | Generally not available against the District |
| Key defense | Compact immunity for discretionary functions | Public-duty doctrine, discretionary immunity, § 12-309 |
The notice point deserves emphasis: many injured riders (and some lawyers) assume the District's six-month notice statute applies to Metro. It does not — but if your case involves both WMATA and the District (a sidewalk defect at a station entrance, for example), the six-month clock is running on the District piece.
What this means for injured people in the District of Columbia
- Report the incident immediately and get the report number. Station managers and bus operators document incidents — make sure yours is documented accurately.
- Preserve the video. Stations and buses are heavily camera-covered, but footage does not last forever. A prompt preservation letter is often the most valuable early step.
- Expect an immunity fight. WMATA raises compact immunity in nearly every serious case; the framing of your claim as ministerial rather than discretionary matters from day one.
- Contributory negligence is not automatically fatal. After Whiteru, a rider's own mistake does not excuse Metro's failure to aid an injured passenger it should have discovered.
- Mind the deadline. Negligence claims in the District are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations — but immunity motions and evidence preservation reward early action, not deadline-watching.
Metro cases combine transit operations, compact immunity, and old-fashioned negligence proof. They reward lawyers who try them — and punish delay.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.
Update: The Whiteru litigation continued after this post. In December 2023, the D.C. Circuit certified the "trespasser question" to the D.C. Court of Appeals — see Whiteru Returns — and on November 20, 2025, DC's highest court confirmed a duty of reasonable aid to the fallen in Whiteru, the Finale.