January 18, 2020

January 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 16, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 15, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Washington D.C. Water Utility Sheds Negligence, Consumer Protection Claims in Lead-in-Water Litigation

In a decision that may have implications in other cases related to alleged lead in drinking water, a District of Columbia trial court dismissed negligence and consumer protection claims against the District’s water utility, DC Water.  See Barkley v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 2016 WL 184433 (D.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 13, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed injuries stemming from their alleged exposure to lead in drinking water in the early 2000s.  DC Water successfully argued that the public duty doctrine – which bars negligence claims against government entities regarding services provided to the public at large – bars claims regarding drinking water distribution and related public education. 

Under the District’s public duty doctrine, the District and its agencies “owe no duty to provide public services to particular citizens as individuals.”  Id. at *3.  “Stated another way, absent a special relationship between the District and an individual citizen creating a specific duty of care owed to that individual, the duty to all is a duty to no one.”  Id.  In granting summary judgment to DC Water on Plaintiffs’ negligence claims, the Court found that DC Water, created by the District’s legislative body, is part of the District government and is therefore entitled to the protection of the public duty doctrine.  The Court noted that the public duty doctrine protects government funds from the drain of litigation costs and safeguards the separation of powers. 

The Court also found that DC Water is not a “merchant” for purposes of the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”).  The Court wrote that “[DC Water] exists for a distinctly public purpose and that the fees [DC Water] charges are to maintain its solvency and to enable it to fulfill its statutory public purposes, not to turn a profit,” thus shielding DC Water from suit under the version of the CPPA in effect in the early 2000s.  The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ claims for personal injury damages under the CPPA, finding that remedies under the CPPA were limited to the limited relief prescribed by the statute.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC


About this Author

Graham C. Zorn, Environmental Law Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm

Graham C. Zorn is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., with a general litigation, regulatory, and environmental practice.  Graham has represented individual businesses, trade associations, and municipalities in compliance, enforcement, and counseling matters involving the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, CERCLA and other state and federal statutes.  He has worked extensively on a series of complex products liability and toxic tort cases related to alleged groundwater contamination involving a gasoline additive.  Graham has also counseled domestic...

Daniel M. Krainin, Environmental Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm

Daniel M. Krainin is a Principal in the New York office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.  He was named to the 2011 and 2012 Super Lawyers list for the New York Metropolitan area, holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and serves as a Vice Chair of the ABA Environment Section's Environmental Litigation and Toxic Torts Committee.

212-702 5417
Eric Klein, environmental attorney, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.

Eric L. Klein is an environmental civil litigator and regulatory counselor in the Washington, D.C. office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.  He has handled cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States, litigating a variety of complex civil and commercial matters before juries, trial and appellate courts, arbitrators and administrative tribunals.  Mr. Klein frequently litigates both statutory and common law claims, and specializes in challenging and defending technical experts in the litigation of complex environmental torts.