Louis Kuzminsky v. Leroy Woodard

D.C. Circuit

Louis Kuzminsky v. Leroy Woodard

307 F.2d 195, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4557

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 1962

Docket16496_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 307 F.2d 195 (Louis Kuzminsky v. Leroy Woodard) 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

Louis Kuzminsky v. Leroy Woodard, 307 F.2d 195, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4557 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this suit for personal injuries the District Court directed a verdict for the defendant after a jury had failed to agree. We think there should be-a new trial.

The plaintiff testified that he was standing in a crosswalk when he was struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant testified in effect that the plaintiff stepped off a loading platform and walked against the side of the car. Which version is correct is a typical jury question. If a jury believed the plaintiff’s version, it might reasonably conclude that the defendant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. D.C.Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations, Pt. I, §§ 52(a), 54; Griffith v. Slaybaugh, 58 App.D.C. 237, 239, 29 F.2d 437, 439 (1928); Peck v. United States, 195 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1952); Henkelmann v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Md. 591, 595, 26 A.2d 418, 421 (1942). Other jury questions are whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and if he was, whether the defendant in the exercise of due care should have observed that the plaintiff was oblivious to the car’s approach and taken steps which he did not take to avoid the accident. Capital Transit Co. v. Garcia, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 194 F.2d 162 (1952).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this suit for personal injuries the District Court directed a verdict for the defendant after a jury had failed to agree. We think there should be-a new trial.

The plaintiff testified that he was standing in a crosswalk when he was struck by the defendant’s car. The defendant testified in effect that the plaintiff stepped off a loading platform and walked against the side of the car. Which version is correct is a typical jury question. If a jury believed the plaintiff’s version, it might reasonably conclude that the defendant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. D.C.Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations, Pt. I, §§ 52(a), 54; Griffith v. Slaybaugh, 58 App.D.C. 237, 239, 29 F.2d 437, 439 (1928); Peck v. United States, 195 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1952); Henkelmann v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Md. 591, 595, 26 A.2d 418, 421 (1942). Other jury questions are whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and if he was, whether the defendant in the exercise of due care should have observed that the plaintiff was oblivious to the car’s approach and taken steps which he did not take to avoid the accident. Capital Transit Co. v. Garcia, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 194 F.2d 162 (1952).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 F.2d 195, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-kuzminsky-v-leroy-woodard-cadc-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack