Charles H. Hines v. The Washington Terminal Company, a Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Charles H. Hines v. The Washington Terminal Company, a Corporation

240 F.2d 891, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 29

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1957

Docket13487

StatusPublished

This text of 240 F.2d 891 (Charles H. Hines v. The Washington Terminal Company, 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

Charles H. Hines v. The Washington Terminal Company, a Corporation, 240 F.2d 891, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 29 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plain tiff-appellant was injured by the operation of a series of connected vehicles by an employee of the defendantappellee. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the basis of plaintiff’s opening statement. Apparently the court assumed arguendo that the defendant’s negligence was sufficiently alleged, but concluded that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the opening statement, we think that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should have been put to proof. Calbreath v. Capital Transit Co., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 240 F.2d 621 (1956), and cases therein cited; see also Tobin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 69 App.D.C. 262, 100 F.2d 435 (1938), certiorari denied 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040 (1939).

The judgment of the District Court will be reversed and the case remanded.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plain tiff-appellant was injured by the operation of a series of connected vehicles by an employee of the defendantappellee. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the basis of plaintiff’s opening statement. Apparently the court assumed arguendo that the defendant’s negligence was sufficiently alleged, but concluded that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the opening statement, we think that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should have been put to proof. Calbreath v. Capital Transit Co., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 240 F.2d 621 (1956), and cases therein cited; see also Tobin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 69 App.D.C. 262, 100 F.2d 435 (1938), certiorari denied 306 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 488, 83 L.Ed. 1040 (1939).

The judgment of the District Court will be reversed and the case remanded.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 F.2d 891, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-h-hines-v-the-washington-terminal-company-a-corporation-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack