Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company, a Corporation v. Hattie L. Cox

D.C. Circuit

Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company, a Corporation v. Hattie L. Cox

220 F.2d 379, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 116, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1955

Docket12345

StatusPublished

This text of 220 F.2d 379 (Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company, a Corporation v. Hattie L. Cox) 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

Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company, a Corporation v. Hattie L. Cox, 220 F.2d 379, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 116, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury case in which the defendant bus company appeals from the verdict and judgment against it. At the trial plaintiff and a fellow passenger called by her testified as to the manner in which the accident occurred. On cross-examination defendant attempted to impeach this testimony by cross-examining plaintiff on the basis of her deposition and of prior statements to her insurance company and to physicians, and by cross-examining both witnesses on statements given by them to an investigator for appellant’s insurance company. The driver of the bus testified on behalf of the defendant. On this state of the record appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence on which to base liability, citing Washington, Marlboro & Annapolis Motor Lines v. Maske, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 190 F.2d 621, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 56, 96 L.Ed. 631. Here, however, the apparent conflicts of plaintiff’s testimony with her prior statements were explained by her, and the positive testimony of herself and her fellow passenger as to defendant’s negligence was not shaken by cross-examination. Under the circumstances, it was for the jury to accept or reject all or part of the testimony of each witness. Melville v. State of Maryland, 4 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 440. We cannot say, as in Maske, supra, that the jury’s verdict lacks substantial support. There was no error.

Affirmed.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury case in which the defendant bus company appeals from the verdict and judgment against it. At the trial plaintiff and a fellow passenger called by her testified as to the manner in which the accident occurred. On cross-examination defendant attempted to impeach this testimony by cross-examining plaintiff on the basis of her deposition and of prior statements to her insurance company and to physicians, and by cross-examining both witnesses on statements given by them to an investigator for appellant’s insurance company. The driver of the bus testified on behalf of the defendant. On this state of the record appellant alleges that there was insufficient evidence on which to base liability, citing Washington, Marlboro & Annapolis Motor Lines v. Maske, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 190 F.2d 621, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 56, 96 L.Ed. 631. Here, however, the apparent conflicts of plaintiff’s testimony with her prior statements were explained by her, and the positive testimony of herself and her fellow passenger as to defendant’s negligence was not shaken by cross-examination. Under the circumstances, it was for the jury to accept or reject all or part of the testimony of each witness. Melville v. State of Maryland, 4 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 440. We cannot say, as in Maske, supra, that the jury’s verdict lacks substantial support. There was no error.

Affirmed.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F.2d 379, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 116, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexandria-barcroft-and-washington-transit-company-a-corporation-v-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack