Irene D. Treadwell v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Irene D. Treadwell v. District of Columbia

255 F.2d 541, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1958

Docket13773_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 F.2d 541 (Irene D. Treadwell 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

Irene D. Treadwell v. District of Columbia, 255 F.2d 541, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, having alighted from a taxicab which then drew away, slipped as she stepped from the curb into the brick-lined gutter of First Street, N. W. [542]*542As she thereupon fell, she received injuries allegedly due to the negligence of the District of Columbia. She now complains that the trial judge erred in directing a defendant’s verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case. He ruled that the plaintiff’s notice of her claim was inadequate as failing to comply with the requirements of D.C.Code § 12-208 (1951), but we decide otherwise in view of Stone v. District of Columbia, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 237 F.2d 28, (en banc) certiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 934, 77 S.Ct. 221, 1 L.Ed.2d 160.

It was also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to supply “any proof of the alleged negligence.” On this point we agree and will affirm.

The complaint had alleged that the District is charged by law with the maintenance of sidewalks, but the plaintiff was not on a sidewalk or crosswalk. It was also alleged that the District had negligently maintained the “guttering” and had created a dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff “was about to step onto the curb when as a result of the improper construction and/or maintenance of the curbing” she fell into a storm ¡sewer.

The exhibits disclose an aperture, flush with the curbing, located some ten or twelve feet north of the crosswalk. The gutter is lined with inlaid bricks which are pitched at the mouth of the •drain to divert water into a sump. The plaintiff and her sister, to like effect, ■described the brick surface in front of the inset opening to the drain as “slick,” “not flat,” “slanted,” “straight down.” There was no foreign matter on the dry ¡surface. The sun was shining. It was .a bright summer afternoon. The plaintiff, wearing “heels,” was intent upon reaching a funeral parlor on the opposite •side of the street. Having first stepped from the cab directly onto the curb, when ■the cab drew away, she started. As she said, “I just stepped off the curb and I .just slipped on under.” She went back ■afterwards to look at the area.

We have carefully studied the transcript and the exhibits. There was offered no evidence of negligent construction or engineering defect or of faulty maintenance. Certainly there was no negligence as a matter of law, and it was the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the District had somehow failed to perform a duty owed to her. There was a “total lack of evidence showing negligence on the part of the District, sufficient to support a judgment in this case.” District of Columbia v. Manning, 1927, 57 App.D.C. 156, 157, 18 F.2d 806, 807, 53 A.L.R. 167. We see only an unfortunate mishap wherein the plaintiff stepped off the curb into the gutter and fell while doing so.

There is no error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, having alighted from a taxicab which then drew away, slipped as she stepped from the curb into the brick-lined gutter of First Street, N. W. [542]*542As she thereupon fell, she received injuries allegedly due to the negligence of the District of Columbia. She now complains that the trial judge erred in directing a defendant’s verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case. He ruled that the plaintiff’s notice of her claim was inadequate as failing to comply with the requirements of D.C.Code § 12-208 (1951), but we decide otherwise in view of Stone v. District of Columbia, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 237 F.2d 28, (en banc) certiorari denied 1956, 352 U.S. 934, 77 S.Ct. 221, 1 L.Ed.2d 160.

It was also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to supply “any proof of the alleged negligence.” On this point we agree and will affirm.

The complaint had alleged that the District is charged by law with the maintenance of sidewalks, but the plaintiff was not on a sidewalk or crosswalk. It was also alleged that the District had negligently maintained the “guttering” and had created a dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff “was about to step onto the curb when as a result of the improper construction and/or maintenance of the curbing” she fell into a storm ¡sewer.

The exhibits disclose an aperture, flush with the curbing, located some ten or twelve feet north of the crosswalk. The gutter is lined with inlaid bricks which are pitched at the mouth of the •drain to divert water into a sump. The plaintiff and her sister, to like effect, ■described the brick surface in front of the inset opening to the drain as “slick,” “not flat,” “slanted,” “straight down.” There was no foreign matter on the dry ¡surface. The sun was shining. It was .a bright summer afternoon. The plaintiff, wearing “heels,” was intent upon reaching a funeral parlor on the opposite •side of the street. Having first stepped from the cab directly onto the curb, when ■the cab drew away, she started. As she said, “I just stepped off the curb and I .just slipped on under.” She went back ■afterwards to look at the area.

We have carefully studied the transcript and the exhibits. There was offered no evidence of negligent construction or engineering defect or of faulty maintenance. Certainly there was no negligence as a matter of law, and it was the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the District had somehow failed to perform a duty owed to her. There was a “total lack of evidence showing negligence on the part of the District, sufficient to support a judgment in this case.” District of Columbia v. Manning, 1927, 57 App.D.C. 156, 157, 18 F.2d 806, 807, 53 A.L.R. 167. We see only an unfortunate mishap wherein the plaintiff stepped off the curb into the gutter and fell while doing so.

There is no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 541, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irene-d-treadwell-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack