Briscoe v. District of Columbia

Summary

Gwendolyn Briscoe sued the District of Columbia for negligence after tripping on a small defect in a curbstone. The District Court granted summary judgment, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the alleged defect was de minimis and that Briscoe failed to establish constructive notice. The court also rejected her challenge to the denial of further discovery.

Holdings

1. A municipality is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the alleged sidewalk or curbstone defect is de minimis or otherwise insignificant, even if the municipality had notice of it. The defect shown in this case was legally de minimis, so Briscoe could not prevail on her negligence claim.
2. Briscoe failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the District had constructive notice of the inconspicuous and insignificant curbstone defect.
3. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment without permitting further discovery because Briscoe did not file an affidavit identifying facts essential to oppose summary judgment or explaining how additional discovery would produce them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged curbstone defect was so minor or de minimis that the District was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim.
2. Whether Briscoe presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning the District's constructive notice of the alleged defect.
3. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion by refusing to permit further discovery before granting summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed