District of Columbia v. Mildred R. Stamp

D.C. Circuit

District of Columbia v. Mildred R. Stamp

324 F.2d 406, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 374

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided September 12, 1963·No. 17301_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee fell on an icy sidewalk in downtown Washington, in March of 1960, and was seriously injured. She sued the District of Columbia, and obtained a judgment. On appeal, the District makes no criticism of the instructions given to the jury, but complains chiefly that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual or constructive notice to the District of the existence of a dangerous condition at the location where appellee fell. We disagree. In our view, the evidence was enough to take the ease to the jury, under our decisions in Smith v. District of Columbia, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 189 F.2d 671 (1951), and Campbell v. District of Columbia, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 243 F.2d 226 (1957).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee fell on an icy sidewalk in downtown Washington, in March of 1960, and was seriously injured. She sued the District of Columbia, and obtained a judgment. On appeal, the District makes no criticism of the instructions given to the jury, but complains chiefly that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual or constructive notice to the District of the existence of a dangerous condition at the location where appellee fell. We disagree. In our view, the evidence was enough to take the ease to the jury, under our decisions in Smith v. District of Columbia, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 189 F.2d 671 (1951), and Campbell v. District of Columbia, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 243 F.2d 226 (1957).

Affirmed.

District of Columbia v. Mildred R. Stamp, 324 F.2d 406, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 374 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

324 F.2d 406 (District of Columbia v. Mildred R. Stamp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related