ADA M. REECE AND CHARLES REECE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE; CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. ADA M. REECE AND CHARLES REECE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was too uncertain to permit the jury to speculate about the transit company's negligence, thus judgments non obstante veredicto were properly entered.
Plaintiff was injured alighting from a bus that stopped two to three feet from the curb, near a puddle of water formed by melting snow. Passengers ahe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Speculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ada M. Reece was injured in alighting from a Capital Transit bus, which had.stopped two or three feet from the curb at a point where melting snow had formed a puddle of water some 18 inches wide between the bus stop and the curb. It was daylight. Passengers-ahead of Mrs. Reece reached the sidewalk safely, but she fell as she attempted to go from, the bus to the curb.
The injured woman and her husband sued the Capital Transit Company and a jury returned verdicts in their favor. The transit company’s motion for a new trial was denied and it appeals, No. 12,-763. But on its alternative motion, judgments non obstante veredicto were awarded to the defendant and the Reec-es appeal from those judgments, No. 12,-762.
The evidence left the cause of Mrs. Reece’s fall so uncertain that the jury should not have been permitted to speculate that her injuries were attributable to the appellee’s negligence. Judgments n. o. v. were therefore properly entered. Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co., 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 214 F. 2d 241; Marshall v. Capital Transit Co., 1954, 95 U.S.App. D.C. 1, 216 F. 2d 636; Swank v. Capital Transit Co., 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 220 F. 2d 807.
Judgments in No. 12762 affirmed; appeal in No. 12763 dismissed as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Pa. R.R. Co. v. Pomeroy, 239 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
-
Logsdon v. Baker, 517 F.2d 174 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
-
Bess O'Melveny MacMAUGH v. Mrs. David Baldwin, 239 F.2d 67 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Authorities Cited
- Kieffer v. Cap. Transit Co., 214 F.2d 241 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- Mrs. Ethel Burns (Wiggins) Marshall v. Cap. Transit Co., 216 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 220 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1955)