A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court of the District of Columbia’s grant of summary judgment to One Parking 555, LLC (“One Parking”). One Parking was sued by a patron who allegedly tripped and fell on a single step riser in a parking garage operated by One Parking. The patron contended that the single step was “improperly marked and inconspicuous,” but there were handrails on either side of the step, the vertical edge of the step was highlighted in yellow, and the top of the landing was painted a darker gray than the floor of the garage. After the completion of discovery, One Parking moved for summary judgment because the patron did not adduce any evidence that a hazardous condition caused the fall. The Superior Court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of One Parking. The patron appealed the grant of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the matter de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals concluded that “no reasonable factfinder could conclude that One Parking had constructive notice of a hazard” because the patron was unable to prove that a hazard existed in the first place. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the evidence by the patron and her family merely indicated that the patron did not perceive the step while she was walking and that such evidence did not prove that the step was hazardous or that One Parking knew or should have known about the alleged hazard.

One Parking was represented by Ellen R. Stewart throughout the proceedings. The case is Catherine Leach v. One Parking 555, LLC, 319 A.3d 415 (2024).