Byas v. Dorsey

D.C. Circuit

Byas v. Dorsey

192 F.2d 613, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1951

Docket10578_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 F.2d 613 (Byas v. Dorsey) 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

Byas v. Dorsey, 192 F.2d 613, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Eleanor Byas, the unsuccessful plaintiff in a negligence suit. *614 Upon the conclusion of testimony in the trial court, she moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that negligence had been established as a matter of law and that the testimony disclosed no evidence of contributory negligence. The court ruled that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law, but submitted the issues of proximate cause, contributory negligence and damages to the jury. A general verdict was returned for the defendant. As her sole grounds for reversal, appellant urges that the record did not contain enough evidence on the question of contributory negligence to justify the submission of that issue to the jury.

We cannot agree. Our examination of the record reveals enough evidence, if believed, to support a jury finding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent — i. e., failed to act with the prudence demanded of an ordinary, reasonable person under all the circumstances of this case. See United States v. Benson, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 185 F.2d 995. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for submitting the issue of proximate cause to the jury. And since both issues were properly submitted, there is no occasion to consider whether the improper submission of one issue to the jury could require reversal in a case where a general verdict might have been based on a second issue which was properly submitted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Eleanor Byas, the unsuccessful plaintiff in a negligence suit. *614 Upon the conclusion of testimony in the trial court, she moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that negligence had been established as a matter of law and that the testimony disclosed no evidence of contributory negligence. The court ruled that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law, but submitted the issues of proximate cause, contributory negligence and damages to the jury. A general verdict was returned for the defendant. As her sole grounds for reversal, appellant urges that the record did not contain enough evidence on the question of contributory negligence to justify the submission of that issue to the jury.

We cannot agree. Our examination of the record reveals enough evidence, if believed, to support a jury finding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent — i. e., failed to act with the prudence demanded of an ordinary, reasonable person under all the circumstances of this case. See United States v. Benson, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 185 F.2d 995. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for submitting the issue of proximate cause to the jury. And since both issues were properly submitted, there is no occasion to consider whether the improper submission of one issue to the jury could require reversal in a case where a general verdict might have been based on a second issue which was properly submitted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 F.2d 613, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 403, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byas-v-dorsey-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack