## Facts

- Devora Johnson, an adult with serious mental illness, entered a Metrorail track area and jumped in front of an oncoming train, intending suicide.
- The train struck and killed her.
- Her parents sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for wrongful death and survival, alleging the train operator negligently delayed applying the emergency brake.
- The theory of liability relied on the doctrine of last clear chance: Devora’s initial self-endangerment was undisputed, but plaintiffs contended WMATA had a later opportunity to avoid the fatal impact.
- The case was tried in federal district court applying District of Columbia tort law; the court instructed on last clear chance and the jury found WMATA liable.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit certified a question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals about whether last clear chance is available when the plaintiff voluntarily assumed an unreasonable risk of the very injury suffered.

## Issues

1. Under District of Columbia law, may a plaintiff who voluntarily assumed an unreasonable risk of the specific injury recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to prevent that injury?
2. Does an intentional act of suicide categorically bar application of last clear chance because it constitutes assumption of risk?

## Decision

- The court answered the certified question yes.
- It held last clear chance may apply even when the plaintiff voluntarily assumed an unreasonable risk of the very harm suffered, and it declined to recognize a categorical “suicide exception.”
- The court reasoned that last clear chance focuses on the defendant’s later opportunity to avoid injury after the plaintiff is in peril.
- It concluded that assumption of risk does not automatically preclude last clear chance in a contributory-negligence jurisdiction absent controlling authority creating such a bar.

## Legal Principles

- In the District of Columbia, contributory negligence ordinarily bars recovery, but last clear chance permits recovery if the defendant, aware (or constructively aware) of the plaintiff’s peril, had the ability and a later opportunity to avoid the injury and failed to do so.
- Last clear chance analysis centers on the defendant’s conduct after the plaintiff is in a position of danger, not solely on the plaintiff’s earlier fault.
- Assumption of risk and contributory negligence may overlap; where last clear chance can overcome contributory negligence, it may also apply notwithstanding assumption of risk absent a recognized categorical exclusion.

## Conclusion

The court held that intentional self-endangerment through a suicide attempt does not, as a matter of law, bar application of last clear chance; a plaintiff may recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury and failed to act reasonably.


Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Johnson, 699 A.2d 404 (D.C. 1997)