Mary D. Swank v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Mary D. Swank v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation

220 F.2d 807, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 127, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1955

Docket12372

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 F.2d 807 (Mary D. Swank v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation) 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

Mary D. Swank v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, 220 F.2d 807, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 127, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are so similar to those which were present in Marshall v. Capital Transit Co., 95 U.S.App.D.C. - — , 216 F.2d 636, that we are not justified in reaching a different conclusion. This result is fortified by the fact that on several occasions appellant had alighted on the street pavement, and not on the curb, at the point in question. Furthermore, she was aware that she *808 was making a full step down to the street pavement and not the shorter distance to the top of the curb. *

Affirmed.

*

Plaintiff’s reliance upon Section 3(o), of Order No. 711 of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, F. C. No. 103 (June 19, 1928), is misplaced. This regulation provides in substance that on streets where stopping points have been ordered and authorized by the Commission and indicated by suitable signs no stop shall be made at points other than those indicated. This is not intended to prevent the bus from stopping a short distance out from the curb but to provide against irregular stopping points not authorized and indicated by signs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are so similar to those which were present in Marshall v. Capital Transit Co., 95 U.S.App.D.C. - — , 216 F.2d 636, that we are not justified in reaching a different conclusion. This result is fortified by the fact that on several occasions appellant had alighted on the street pavement, and not on the curb, at the point in question. Furthermore, she was aware that she *808 was making a full step down to the street pavement and not the shorter distance to the top of the curb. *

Affirmed.

*

Plaintiff’s reliance upon Section 3(o), of Order No. 711 of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, F. C. No. 103 (June 19, 1928), is misplaced. This regulation provides in substance that on streets where stopping points have been ordered and authorized by the Commission and indicated by suitable signs no stop shall be made at points other than those indicated. This is not intended to prevent the bus from stopping a short distance out from the curb but to provide against irregular stopping points not authorized and indicated by signs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F.2d 807, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 127, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-d-swank-v-capital-transit-company-a-corporation-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack