## Facts

- E.C., an adult with developmental disabilities, received residential and community support services from RCM, including staffing and supervision at her apartment and during outings.
- E.C. had contact with M.L., a male acquaintance who was not an RCM employee; staff knew of the relationship and at times allowed visits or accompanied the pair in the community.
- E.C. reported to RCM staff that M.L. sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, including an alleged rape in February 2011 and another later that year.
- After these reports, staff took some responsive steps (e.g., contacting police, taking E.C. to a hospital, notifying supervisors) but did not consistently restrict or end M.L.’s access to E.C.
- E.C. obtained two Temporary Protection Orders against M.L. (August 2011 and March 2012) directing him to stay away from her home and workplace and not contact her.
- E.C alleged that despite knowledge of these orders, RCM did not implement a consistent no-contact plan or enforce staff directives to prevent continued contact.
- E.C. alleged a further sexual assault by M.L. after the protection orders, attributing the harm in part to RCM’s failure to take stronger protective measures.

## Issues

1. Whether a service provider to a developmentally disabled adult owed a duty to take reasonable measures to protect the client from foreseeable criminal acts by a known third party.
2. Whether expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care and breach for E.C.’s negligence claim.
3. Whether the evidence, viewed favorably to E.C., permitted a reasonable inference of foreseeability and proximate cause sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in part and remanded.
- The court held expert testimony was not categorically required for all aspects of E.C.’s negligence claim.
- The court concluded a reasonable jury could find duty, breach, and foreseeability based on RCM’s knowledge of repeated assault allegations and the existence of protection orders, making summary judgment improper as to those ordinary-negligence theories.
- The court left open that expert testimony could be required for more specialized theories dependent on professional or programmatic standards within the disability-services system.

## Legal Principles

- A “special relationship” may arise where an entity assumes responsibility for the care or supervision of a vulnerable person, supporting a duty to use reasonable care to protect against reasonably foreseeable physical harm by third parties.
- Foreseeability may be established by repeated reports of sexual assault by the same individual and the client’s procurement of court-issued protection orders against that individual.
- Expert testimony is not required when the alleged negligence can be assessed by lay jurors using common experience (the common-knowledge exception), even if the defendant operates in a specialized service setting.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate when a reasonable jury could find duty, breach, and causation on the record viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court held that E.C. presented triable ordinary-negligence claims against her service provider based on its alleged failure to take basic protective steps after repeated rape reports and protection orders, and that these claims could proceed without expert testimony, while more specialized standard-of-care theories might still require expert proof.


E.C. v. RCM of Wash., Inc., 92 A.3d 305 (D.C. 2014)