Metro and Metrobus Injury Lawyers

What is the WMATA Compact, and why does it control your claim?

WMATA is not a city agency or a private company: it is an interstate agency created by a compact that D.C., Maryland, and Virginia each enacted into law and Congress approved (D.C. Code § 9-1107.01; Md. Code, Transp. § 10-204; Va. Code § 33.2-3100). The same text is in force in all three jurisdictions, and two sections of it shape every injury case.

Section 80 makes WMATA liable for its torts and those of its employees "committed in the conduct of any proprietary function, in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory (including rules on conflict of laws)," but provides that WMATA "shall not be liable for any torts occurring in the performance of a governmental function." Section 80 also makes a suit against WMATA the exclusive remedy for those torts.

Section 81 gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction over suits against WMATA, concurrent with the courts of D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, and lets WMATA remove a case filed in a local court to federal court. In practice, many WMATA injury cases are litigated in the U.S. District Courts for D.C., Maryland, and the Eastern District of Virginia.

When is WMATA immune from an injury claim?

WMATA is immune only for torts committed in a "governmental function," and the D.C. Circuit uses two tests to identify those functions (Burkhart v. WMATA, 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). First, a "quintessential" governmental function, such as police activity, is immune. Second, for everything else, immunity depends on whether the activity is "discretionary" or "ministerial."

Under the discretionary-function test the court in Burkhart adopted, conduct is not immune when a statute, regulation, or policy prescribes a specific course of action and the employee fails to follow it. Conduct is immune only when it involves a choice "susceptible to policy judgment." Applying that test, Burkhart held that WMATA's decisions about hiring, training, and supervising employees are discretionary and immune, while it affirmed the verdict holding WMATA vicariously liable for its bus operator's assault on a passenger.

That distinction drives how we plead a WMATA case. A claim that WMATA should have designed a station differently or adopted a different safety program invites an immunity fight. A claim that a bus operator drove carelessly, that a train operator broke a written rule, or that an employee skipped a required inspection targets the operation of the system, where WMATA answers like any other carrier.

What duty does WMATA owe its passengers?

WMATA owes passengers the duty of a common carrier, and the standard depends on where the injury happened. In D.C., "WMATA, like any common carrier, owes a duty of reasonable care to its passengers," and the greater the danger, the greater the care required (Pazmino v. WMATA, 638 A.2d 677 (D.C. 1994)). Pazmino involved a standing bus passenger thrown into the fare box during an abrupt stop; the court reversed a directed verdict for WMATA and sent the case to a jury.

Maryland applies a higher standard. Maryland's highest court has held that a common carrier such as WMATA owes its passengers "the highest degree of care to provide safe means and methods of transportation for them" (WMATA v. Seymour, 387 Md. 217 (2005)). In Seymour, a Metrobus rider was thrown from her seat when the driver braked hard after accelerating too fast toward a car pulling out of a parking lot in Prince George's County; the court affirmed the judgment for the passenger even though the other car had violated the right of way.

Common-carrier status also creates a duty to help. In Whiteru v. WMATA, 25 F.4th 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the D.C. Circuit held that under D.C. law a common carrier that knows or has reason to know a passenger is injured has a duty to render aid, and that the passenger's own negligence in causing the first injury does not bar a claim for the harm made worse by the carrier's failure to help. In 2025, answering a question the D.C. Circuit certified in the same case, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that even when a passenger falls into a non-public area, a carrier that knows or has reason to know of the person's presence and injured or trapped condition owes a duty of reasonable aid (Whiteru v. WMATA, No. 24-SP-0003 (D.C. Nov. 20, 2025)).

Our founding partner Jacob Lebowitz, at a prior firm, briefed a published D.C. Circuit decision on WMATA's duty, Sibert-Dean v. WMATA, 721 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2013). There, a Metrobus passenger was thrown into a steel handrail when the distracted operator pulled away from a stop and hit a turning car. The court affirmed the passenger's jury verdict, holding that the D.C. regulation requiring drivers to "give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle" sets a specific standard that supports a negligence per se instruction.

Contributory negligence in WMATA cases

D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all still apply contributory negligence, so WMATA's lawyers routinely argue that a rider was not holding a rail, was moving between seats, or was not watching the platform edge. Pazmino and Seymour show the answer: the focus belongs on what the operator did. As the Maryland court observed in Seymour, in the normal operation of a bus, passengers generally are not thrown from their properly seated positions.

Two exceptions matter here. The Whiteru duty-to-aid rule applies even when the passenger's own conduct caused the first fall. And in D.C., a pedestrian or cyclist in a collision with a motor vehicle on a public street is barred only if that person's negligence was a proximate cause and greater than the combined negligence of all defendants (D.C. Code § 50-2204.52). For the full rule in all three jurisdictions, see contributory negligence: the rule that decides most DMV cases.

Is there a notice deadline for a claim against WMATA?

We have not found a notice-of-claim deadline that applies to WMATA tort claims: Section 80 of the Compact contains none, D.C.'s six-month notice statute applies to actions "against the District of Columbia" (D.C. Code § 12-309), and WMATA is not on the list of entities covered by Maryland's Local Government Tort Claims Act (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-301(d)).

That is not a reason to wait. WMATA's claims process and evidence systems move on their own schedule, and many crashes involve more than one defendant. If a D.C. government vehicle, a Maryland county vehicle, or a Virginia locality is also involved, those notice rules can apply to that part of the claim. See claims against the District of Columbia, injury claims against Maryland governments, and injury claims against Virginia governments.

How long do I have to sue WMATA?

Because Section 80 applies "the law of the applicable signatory," the filing deadline generally follows the jurisdiction where you were hurt: three years in D.C. (D.C. Code § 12-301(8)), three years in Maryland (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101), and two years in Virginia (Va. Code § 8.01-243(A)).

Where the injury happened	Typical places	General filing deadline
Washington, D.C.	Downtown and Capitol Hill stations, Metrobus routes on D.C. streets	3 years (D.C. Code § 12-301(8)); 1 year for assault and battery claims (§ 12-301(4))
Maryland	Red, Green, Orange, Blue, and Silver Line stations in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; Metrobus routes	3 years (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101)
Virginia	Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, and Loudoun stations; Metrobus routes	2 years (Va. Code § 8.01-243(A))

Wrongful death and claims on behalf of children follow their own rules. If a family member died, see our wrongful death page.

Common WMATA injury claims

Metrobus crashes and sudden stops: passengers thrown from seats or off their feet, and occupants of cars the bus hits.
Pedestrians and cyclists struck by a turning or merging Metrobus. See our pedestrian and crosswalk injury page.
Station injuries: falls on stairs, escalators, and platforms, and injuries from closing train doors.
Failure to aid: a rider who falls or is hurt and is left without help after staff knew or should have known.
Assaults by WMATA employees. Claims based on Metro Transit Police activity face a stronger immunity argument because police work is a quintessential governmental function under Burkhart.

Evidence: get the video and the reports immediately

Station cameras, bus cameras, and operator data are the best evidence in most WMATA cases, and transit systems do not keep routine video forever. We send a written preservation demand to WMATA right away identifying the station or bus route, the date, the time window, and the vehicle or car number if you know it. Waiting weeks to ask is how footage gets overwritten.

The Compact authorizes the Metro Transit Police, whose jurisdiction covers WMATA's transit facilities, including bus stops, and is concurrent with local police (Compact § 76). An incident in a station or on a train is usually documented by Metro Transit Police; a Metrobus crash on a public street may be reported by the Metropolitan Police Department, a county police department, or the Virginia State Police. We request every agency's report, plus WMATA's own incident records and the operator's statements. For a checklist, see gathering evidence while it still exists.

What you can do today: write down the bus route and number or the train line and car number, the station and exit, and the time. Keep your SmarTrip card or the app record that shows your trip. Photograph the spot where you fell, the stairs or door involved, and your injuries. Get names and numbers of anyone who saw it.

How we build a WMATA case

We start with immunity, because it decides how the claim must be framed. We then identify the operating rule, regulation, or required procedure the operator or station staff did not follow, and we collect the video, data, and witness accounts that prove it. Where another driver shared in the crash, we pursue that driver too, because there can be more than one cause of an injury, as both Pazmino and Seymour recognized.

WMATA defends these cases with experienced counsel, often in federal court. Ryan Posey and Jacob Lebowitz are admitted in Maryland and Virginia as well as D.C. For the broader rules on public defendants, see injured by a government vehicle, on Metro, or on public property, and our D.C., Maryland, and Virginia injury law pages.

Frequently asked questions

Can you sue WMATA for an injury on Metro or a Metrobus?

Yes, for torts committed in WMATA's proprietary functions, such as operating buses and trains, but not for torts in its governmental functions. Section 80 of the WMATA Compact sets that line, and courts treat police activity and discretionary policy choices, such as hiring, training, and supervision decisions, as governmental and immune. A claim that an operator drove carelessly or that staff failed to follow a required procedure is the kind of claim that can go forward.

Do I have to give WMATA notice within six months?

We have not found a statutory notice-of-claim deadline that applies to WMATA tort claims. The Compact's liability section contains no notice requirement, D.C.'s six-month notice statute applies to claims against the District of Columbia, and WMATA is not on the list of entities covered by Maryland's Local Government Tort Claims Act. If a D.C., Maryland county, or Virginia locality vehicle or property was also involved, those notice rules can apply to that part of the claim, so talk to a lawyer early.

How long do I have to file a lawsuit against WMATA?

Generally three years if you were hurt in D.C. or Maryland and two years if you were hurt in Virginia. The Compact applies the law of the jurisdiction where the injury happened. Claims for assault and battery in D.C. have a one-year limit.

What if WMATA says I was partly at fault for my fall or injury?

Contributory negligence applies in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, so WMATA will raise it, but it is not the end of the case. Courts focus on what the operator did, and in D.C. a common carrier that knows or has reason to know a passenger is injured has a duty to render aid even if the passenger's own negligence caused the first injury. Pedestrians and cyclists hit by a vehicle in D.C. are protected by the vulnerable-user rule in D.C. Code § 50-2204.52.

Does Metro keep video of bus and station incidents?

WMATA has station and bus cameras, but routine video is not kept indefinitely. We send a written preservation demand right away that identifies the station or route, date, time window, and vehicle. If you wait weeks to ask, the footage may be gone.

Will my WMATA case be in federal court?

Often, yes. Section 81 of the Compact gives the federal district courts jurisdiction over suits against WMATA, concurrent with the local courts, and lets WMATA remove a case filed in D.C. Superior Court or a Maryland or Virginia court to federal court.

Talk to a Metro injury lawyer today

Station and bus video is the evidence most WMATA cases turn on, and it is not kept indefinitely. Call us now so a preservation demand goes out before the footage is gone, and well inside the two-year Virginia and three-year D.C. and Maryland filing deadlines.

Posey Lebowitz PLLC · 3221 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20007

Call (202) 524-0123 or request a free consultation. No fee unless we win your injury case.

Our office is in Georgetown, at 3221 M Street NW in Washington, D.C. We meet clients by phone or video, at their home or in the hospital when that is easier, and we appear in Maryland and Virginia courts.

More than $32 million recovered.

Plus more than $22 million in other assets.

Across more than 250 matters, in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

See the results →

These case results are examples of matters handled by Posey Lebowitz PLLC. The outcome of any case depends on the specific facts and legal circumstances of that case. These results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future matter. Amounts shown are gross recoveries before attorney's fees, case expenses, and medical liens. Asset values are stated as of 2026 and will change.

Responsible attorneys: Ryan C. Posey and Jacob M. Lebowitz. Posey Lebowitz PLLC, 3221 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20007.

WMATA Metro and Metrobus Injury Claims