Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co.

214 F.2d 241, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 95, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 22, 1954·No. 11769·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*242 PER CURIAM.

In an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellee, in connection with a fall of appellant in alighting from one of appellee’s buses, the District Court at the conclusion of appellant’s case directed a verdict in favor of appellee because of insufficient evidence of negligence. We affirm. The cause of the fall was left in such uncertainty at the conclusion of appellant’s case that to permit the jury to attribute the claimed injuries to the negligence of appel-lee would be too speculative to warrant submission of the issue to them.

Affirmed.

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

Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co., 214 F.2d 241, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 95, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

214 F.2d 241 (Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perrino v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.
218 A.2d 519 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1966)
Hryn v. Capital Transit Co.
116 A.2d 158 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1955)