Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece

230 F.2d 824, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 274
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 1, 1956
Docket12762, 12763
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 230 F.2d 824 (Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece, 230 F.2d 824, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 274 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Logsdon v. Baker
517 F.2d 174 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)
PEPSI COLA COMPANY v. Waddell
304 A.2d 630 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1973)
Jaramillo v. United States
357 F. Supp. 172 (S.D. New York, 1973)
Courtney v. Giant Food, Inc.
221 A.2d 92 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1966)
Ruffin v. Trans-Lux Theatre
156 A.2d 678 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1959)
Fine v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.
163 F. Supp. 231 (District of Columbia, 1958)
Bess O'Melveny MacMaugh v. Mrs. David Baldwin
239 F.2d 67 (D.C. Circuit, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 F.2d 824, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ada-m-reece-and-charles-reece-v-capital-transit-company-a-corporation-cadc-1956.