Annie Miller Molinaro v. Scott Brothers, Inc., a Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Annie Miller Molinaro v. Scott Brothers, Inc., a Corporation

229 F.2d 773, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3760

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1955

Docket20-1022

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 F.2d 773 (Annie Miller Molinaro v. Scott Brothers, Inc., a Corporation) 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

Annie Miller Molinaro v. Scott Brothers, Inc., a Corporation, 229 F.2d 773, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3760 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Our appellants Molinaro filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia a civil action based upon an automobile accident in Pennsylvania. The evidence showed that the name of the defendant company was painted on the side of the truck which was in collision with appellants’ car. The defendant, however, proved the truck had been leased by it to the Pennsylvania Railroad, was being driven by a regular employee of that Railroad, and was on exclusively Railroad business. That proof was in the form of documents and oral testimony. It was uneontradicted. The Molinaros relied upon a presumption of Pennsylvania law, which is that, where the name of a company is painted on the side of a vehicle, the company is presumed to be the owner and operator of the vehicle.

The Molinaros say that Pennsylvania cases hold the presumption strong enough to take a case to the jury even in the face of uneontradicted evidence contrary to the presumption. In the present case the trial judge let the case go to the jury, and it found for the Molinaros. He then set the verdict aside and gave judgment for the defendant.

The trial judge held the presumption of the Pennsylvania law, being a matter of substance, must be applied, but that the evidentiary situation upon which *774 must depend his' decision whether a case for the jury, had been made out, being a procedural matter, is controlled by the law of the forum. 1 He concluded that the overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence demolished the presumption and left no case for the jury. We find no error in his judgment.

Affirmed.

1

. Tobin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.Cir. 1938, 69 App.D.C. 262, 100 F.2d 435, certiorari denied, 1939, 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040; Boland v. Love, D.C.Cir.1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 341, 222 F.2d 27, 31.

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

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Our appellants Molinaro filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia a civil action based upon an automobile accident in Pennsylvania. The evidence showed that the name of the defendant company was painted on the side of the truck which was in collision with appellants’ car. The defendant, however, proved the truck had been leased by it to the Pennsylvania Railroad, was being driven by a regular employee of that Railroad, and was on exclusively Railroad business. That proof was in the form of documents and oral testimony. It was uneontradicted. The Molinaros relied upon a presumption of Pennsylvania law, which is that, where the name of a company is painted on the side of a vehicle, the company is presumed to be the owner and operator of the vehicle.

The Molinaros say that Pennsylvania cases hold the presumption strong enough to take a case to the jury even in the face of uneontradicted evidence contrary to the presumption. In the present case the trial judge let the case go to the jury, and it found for the Molinaros. He then set the verdict aside and gave judgment for the defendant.

The trial judge held the presumption of the Pennsylvania law, being a matter of substance, must be applied, but that the evidentiary situation upon which *774 must depend his' decision whether a case for the jury, had been made out, being a procedural matter, is controlled by the law of the forum. 1 He concluded that the overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence demolished the presumption and left no case for the jury. We find no error in his judgment.

Affirmed.

1

. Tobin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.Cir. 1938, 69 App.D.C. 262, 100 F.2d 435, certiorari denied, 1939, 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040; Boland v. Love, D.C.Cir.1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 341, 222 F.2d 27, 31.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 773, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annie-miller-molinaro-v-scott-brothers-inc-a-corporation-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack