Capital Transit Co. v. Platshon
This text of 202 F.2d 368 (Capital Transit Co. v. Platshon) 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.
Opinion
Appellee has recovered judgment against appellant for personal injuries. Appellant contends the evidence of negligence was not sufficient. Though it seems to us, from the printed record, that this evidence was not strong and was strongly rebutted, we cannot say it was not substantial or that the jury which saw and heard the witnesses could not reasonably believe it. Accordingly we think the court was right in submitting the question of negligence to the jury. We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
202 F.2d 368, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-transit-co-v-platshon-cadc-1953.