Argued
October 8, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(CAB-436-16) (Hon. Hiram E. Puig-Lugo, Trial Judge)
Gregory S. Smith for appellant. Lawrence S. Lapidus was on
the brief for appellant.
Harry
J. Carleton for appellee Signature Collision Centers, LLC.
Charles L. Simmons, Jr., for appellee H.P. West End, LLC.
Before
Glickman, Beckwith, and McLeese, Associate Judges.
McLeese, Associate Judge:
Appellant
Melanne Civic sued appellees Signature Collision Centers, LLC
and H.P. West End, LLC, alleging that their negligence was
responsible for injuries she suffered in a fall. A jury found
that Signature and H.P. West End had been negligent, but that
Ms. Civic's contributory negligence barred her from
recovering. Ms. Civic argues on appeal primarily that the
trial court erroneously declined to instruct the jury on the
issue of per se negligence. We affirm.
I.
Except
as indicated, the following facts appear to be undisputed. In
February 2013, Ms. Civic fell on a "handicap ramp"
while walking out of an automobile-repair shop operated by
Signature and owned by H.P. West End. Ms. Civic testified
that she fell because of an unmarked vertical and horizontal
gap between a landing and the ramp. Ms. Civic introduced
expert testimony that the vertical component of the gap was
two to three inches and that the gap was inconsistent with
the requirements of the District of Columbia Building Code.
According to Ms. Civic's expert, the gap was unsafe and
contrary to applicable standards of care.
The
defense elicited testimony that Ms. Civic had previously gone
in and out of the repair shop, that she did not recall
whether she was using the handrail when she fell, and that
she was carrying a boot and a cell phone when she fell.
Ms.
Civic asked the trial court to instruct the jury that if the
jury found that Signature and H.P. West End violated D.C.
Building Code § 1003.6, then the jury was required to
find that Signature and H.P. West End were negligent. At the
time of the incident at issue, § 1003.6 required among
other things that a path of egress consist of a
"continuous unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal
egress travel."
The
trial court declined to give the requested instruction. The
trial court did, however, give an instruction that if the
jury found that Signature and H.P. West End violated §
1003.6, the jury could consider that violation as evidence of
negligence. Relatedly, the trial court instructed the jury,
over Ms. Civic's objection, that if the jury found that
Ms. Civic's ...