Pryor v. Scott

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Pryor v. Scott

146 A.2d 569, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 339

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 2, 1958

DocketNo. 2256

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A.2d 569 (Pryor v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pryor v. Scott, 146 A.2d 569, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 339 (D.C. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s automobile while proceeding through an uncontrolled street intersection was struck on its right rear side by ap-pellee’s automobile. The trial court found appellee was negligent, but denied recovery to appellant because of contributory negligence on his part.

This appeal attacks the finding of contributory negligence. Appellant asserts that because his automobile was first in the intersection he had the right of way. He relies on Bland v. Hershey, 60 App.D.C. 226, 50 F.2d 991, but that case holds that right of way is relative and not absolute. Appellant’s testimony was that when he reached the intersection he saw ap-pellee’s car approaching on his right, 20, 30 or 40 feet away, but nevertheless he proceeded into the intersection without slowing down. We cannot say this testimony would not support a finding of contributory negligence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s automobile while proceeding through an uncontrolled street intersection was struck on its right rear side by ap-pellee’s automobile. The trial court found appellee was negligent, but denied recovery to appellant because of contributory negligence on his part.

This appeal attacks the finding of contributory negligence. Appellant asserts that because his automobile was first in the intersection he had the right of way. He relies on Bland v. Hershey, 60 App.D.C. 226, 50 F.2d 991, but that case holds that right of way is relative and not absolute. Appellant’s testimony was that when he reached the intersection he saw ap-pellee’s car approaching on his right, 20, 30 or 40 feet away, but nevertheless he proceeded into the intersection without slowing down. We cannot say this testimony would not support a finding of contributory negligence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.2d 569, 1958 D.C. App. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-scott-dc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack