Florence E. Urciolo v. William Battle

D.C. Circuit

Florence E. Urciolo v. William Battle

329 F.2d 258, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 303, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6478

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1964

Docket18057

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F.2d 258 (Florence E. Urciolo v. William Battle) 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

Florence E. Urciolo v. William Battle, 329 F.2d 258, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 303, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6478 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

*259 PER CURIAM.

The appellee was injured as he negotiated his passage in a darkened hallway leading from a bathroom to a bedroom on the second floor of a 2-tenement house owned by appellants. The appellants had argued in the District Court that the appellee was a trespasser to whom they owed no duty and that, in any event, the appellee had been guilty of contributory negligence. The trial judge instructed the jury on various possible phases of the status of the appellee, whether as trespasser, licensee or invitee, as well as on the other issues raised. No exceptions were taken to the charge as given. Conflicts in the testimony and in the respective claims of the parties were resolved by the jury. We find no error.

Affirmed.

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

*259 PER CURIAM.

The appellee was injured as he negotiated his passage in a darkened hallway leading from a bathroom to a bedroom on the second floor of a 2-tenement house owned by appellants. The appellants had argued in the District Court that the appellee was a trespasser to whom they owed no duty and that, in any event, the appellee had been guilty of contributory negligence. The trial judge instructed the jury on various possible phases of the status of the appellee, whether as trespasser, licensee or invitee, as well as on the other issues raised. No exceptions were taken to the charge as given. Conflicts in the testimony and in the respective claims of the parties were resolved by the jury. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 258, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 303, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-e-urciolo-v-william-battle-cadc-1964.