A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has significant implications for personal injury claims against the government. The court reversed its earlier decision that favored the United States in a case involving an electric scooter accident on the National Mall. This decision affects not only the plaintiff, Syed Akbar, but also sets a precedent for future cases where individuals seek compensation for injuries sustained due to alleged negligence by government entities.
Syed Akbar filed a lawsuit against the United States after he suffered serious injuries while riding an electric scooter on the National Mall in September 2020. Akbar claimed that he fell due to an unmarked defect in the pathway, which he described as an “uneven gap.” His injuries included a bimalleolar fracture to his left ankle. Initially, Akbar sought $5 million in damages, asserting that the government had failed to maintain the area safely.
The case, identified as Civil Action No. 2023-2382, began in August 2023. In January 2025, the United States moved to stay discovery while it pursued a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted this motion, delaying further proceedings. By August 2025, the court had converted the United States’ motion into a summary judgment request and ruled in favor of the government, concluding that the defect was too minor to warrant liability.
However, Akbar later filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). He argued that the court had made several errors, including converting the motion without giving him a chance to present additional evidence. The court reviewed Akbar's claims and agreed with him on all points.
Judge Loren L. AliKhan, presiding over the case, stated, “The court erred in converting the United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment without providing Mr. Akbar an opportunity to present evidence in support of his position.” This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair chance to present their case, especially in personal injury claims where evidence can significantly impact the outcome.
Additionally, the court recognized that it had failed to consider an expert declaration submitted by Akbar, which outlined the national standards for sidewalk safety. The expert, Jason Boyd, a civil engineer, argued that the two-inch elevation change on the path exceeded acceptable limits and constituted a significant safety hazard. The court noted that this evidence was crucial in determining whether the defect was indeed de minimis, or too minor to hold the government liable.
In its ruling, the court stated, “Having now considered Mr. Boyd’s expert declaration, the court determines that there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding the dangerousness of the sidewalk defect in this case.” This statement highlights the court's acknowledgment that the issue of negligence may require further examination, potentially allowing the case to proceed to trial.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Akbar's case. It reinforces the principle that government entities must maintain public pathways in a reasonably safe condition. The decision also clarifies that what constitutes a minor defect is not always a straightforward question and may vary significantly based on the circumstances and available evidence.
Looking ahead, the case will continue as the court has vacated the previous summary judgment in favor of the United States. The parties are required to meet and confer and file a joint status report by September 8, 2026, to propose next steps in the litigation. This development opens the door for further discovery and potentially a trial, where the facts surrounding the incident can be fully explored.
In summary, the court's decision to reverse its earlier ruling not only provides a new opportunity for Syed Akbar to pursue his claims but also serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that government entities have in ensuring public safety. The outcome of this case could influence how similar claims are handled in the future, particularly those involving injuries on public property.