Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. DiFonzo

First Circuit

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. DiFonzo

165 F.2d 957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1948

DocketNo. 4309

StatusPublished

This text of 165 F.2d 957 (Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. DiFonzo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. DiFonzo, 165 F.2d 957 (1st Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in an action for wrongful death. Defendant’s motion for directed verdict was denied — this is the only error urged upon appeal. Defendant’s truck was proceeding along a one-way street, 9 or 10 feet out from the right-hand curb. A 19-year-old girl, plaintiff’s intestate, was riding on her bicycle in the same direction. As the truck approached a cross street, the bicycle was between the truck and the right-hand curb, about opposite the right rear wheel of the truck. The truck turned right on the intersecting street, swinging across the path of the bicycle. The girl attempted to turn right, but her bicycle struck the curb and she was thrown off. She fell under the right rear wheel of the truck and was killed. From a reading of the testimony, which we do not undertake to rehearse in detail, we are satisfied that the present is a routine case in which the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were proper jury issues.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in an action for wrongful death. Defendant’s motion for directed verdict was denied — this is the only error urged upon appeal. Defendant’s truck was proceeding along a one-way street, 9 or 10 feet out from the right-hand curb. A 19-year-old girl, plaintiff’s intestate, was riding on her bicycle in the same direction. As the truck approached a cross street, the bicycle was between the truck and the right-hand curb, about opposite the right rear wheel of the truck. The truck turned right on the intersecting street, swinging across the path of the bicycle. The girl attempted to turn right, but her bicycle struck the curb and she was thrown off. She fell under the right rear wheel of the truck and was killed. From a reading of the testimony, which we do not undertake to rehearse in detail, we are satisfied that the present is a routine case in which the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were proper jury issues.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F.2d 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railway-express-agency-inc-v-difonzo-ca1-1948.