McLaughlin v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

McLaughlin v. District of Columbia

148 F.2d 118, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2407

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1945

DocketNo. 8821

StatusPublished

This text of 148 F.2d 118 (McLaughlin 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

McLaughlin v. District of Columbia, 148 F.2d 118, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2407 (D.C. Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment for the defendants, based on a directed verdict, in a suit for personal injuries. Appellant set out to go to a store on Wisconsin Avenue north 'of S Street. The sidewalk on Wisconsin Avenue was, and had been for several weeks, obstructed in the course of the authorized widening of the avenue and relocation of street car tracks. There is no evidence that the obstruction was unnecessary or that it had continued for an unreasonable length of time. There was not, at any time, a sidewalk on the north side of S Street. Appellant, in attempting to cross the unimproved space between the roadway of S Street and the store, slipped and fell because the ground was wet. By walking a short distance further east, she could have reached the store over an unobstructed paved roadway and parking lot. She does not contend that her fall was caused by any obstruction, depression or unusual condition in the space which she elected to use. There, is no evidence of negligence on the part of the appellees.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment for the defendants, based on a directed verdict, in a suit for personal injuries. Appellant set out to go to a store on Wisconsin Avenue north 'of S Street. The sidewalk on Wisconsin Avenue was, and had been for several weeks, obstructed in the course of the authorized widening of the avenue and relocation of street car tracks. There is no evidence that the obstruction was unnecessary or that it had continued for an unreasonable length of time. There was not, at any time, a sidewalk on the north side of S Street. Appellant, in attempting to cross the unimproved space between the roadway of S Street and the store, slipped and fell because the ground was wet. By walking a short distance further east, she could have reached the store over an unobstructed paved roadway and parking lot. She does not contend that her fall was caused by any obstruction, depression or unusual condition in the space which she elected to use. There, is no evidence of negligence on the part of the appellees.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 F.2d 118, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 410, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1945.