Harris v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Harris v. District of Columbia

278 F. 1020, 51 App. D.C. 401, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1922

DocketNo. 2817

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F. 1020 (Harris v. District of Columbia) 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

Harris v. District of Columbia, 278 F. 1020, 51 App. D.C. 401, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763 (D.C. Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District upon a directed verdict for the defendant, appellee here, in an action for damages for the loss of a part of a finger through the alleged negligence of an employee of the defendant in operating a water plug for the purpose of refilling a sprinkling cart. The fundamental question in the case, whether the sprinkling of streets is “a public or governmental act as contra-distinguished from a private or municipal act, which exempts the District of Columbia from liability for the injuries caused by one of its employees engaged therein,” was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for its opinion, and, that court having answered the question in the affirmative (Harris v. District of Columbia, 256 U. S. 650, 41 Sup. Ct. 610, 65 L. Ed. -), it follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District upon a directed verdict for the defendant, appellee here, in an action for damages for the loss of a part of a finger through the alleged negligence of an employee of the defendant in operating a water plug for the purpose of refilling a sprinkling cart. The fundamental question in the case, whether the sprinkling of streets is “a public or governmental act as contra-distinguished from a private or municipal act, which exempts the District of Columbia from liability for the injuries caused by one of its employees engaged therein,” was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for its opinion, and, that court having answered the question in the affirmative (Harris v. District of Columbia, 256 U. S. 650, 41 Sup. Ct. 610, 65 L. Ed. -), it follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F. 1020, 51 App. D.C. 401, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack