Richardson v. J. Leo Kolb Co., Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Richardson v. J. Leo Kolb Co., Inc.

194 F.2d 888, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1952

Docket11074

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F.2d 888 (Richardson v. J. Leo Kolb Co., Inc.) 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

Richardson v. J. Leo Kolb Co., Inc., 194 F.2d 888, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 205 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by tenants, who are husband and wife, from a summary judgment for the appellee landlords and their agent in a suit for personal injuries said to have been caused to the appellant wife by appellees’ negligent failure to perform a promise to repair part of the leased premises. We think the complaint, answers, and depositions show genuine issues as to the negligence of the appellees and the contributory negligence of the appellant wife. We think the case is unlike Staples v. Casey, 43 App.D.C. 477, in which the complaint was regarded as showing plainly that if the tenant had used reasonable care she would have known of the particular dangerous condition by which she was injured. In the present case we think the complaint and depositions show plainly nothing more than that the tenant knew of other dangerous conditions in the same general vicinity.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by tenants, who are husband and wife, from a summary judgment for the appellee landlords and their agent in a suit for personal injuries said to have been caused to the appellant wife by appellees’ negligent failure to perform a promise to repair part of the leased premises. We think the complaint, answers, and depositions show genuine issues as to the negligence of the appellees and the contributory negligence of the appellant wife. We think the case is unlike Staples v. Casey, 43 App.D.C. 477, in which the complaint was regarded as showing plainly that if the tenant had used reasonable care she would have known of the particular dangerous condition by which she was injured. In the present case we think the complaint and depositions show plainly nothing more than that the tenant knew of other dangerous conditions in the same general vicinity.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 888, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-j-leo-kolb-co-inc-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack