Royal Motors, Inc. v. Elbert W. Murray

D.C. Circuit

Royal Motors, Inc. v. Elbert W. Murray

275 F.2d 3, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5449

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1960

Docket15298_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 3 (Royal Motors, Inc. v. Elbert W. Murray) 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

Royal Motors, Inc. v. Elbert W. Murray, 275 F.2d 3, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5449 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Murray was injured when his car was struck by another automobile. The accident was caused by a defective braking system in the other car. Appellees instituted this action against (1) the owner and driver, (2) the seller-repairer, and (3) the manufacturer. Only the seller-repairer was found to be negligent. It appeals, claiming that it is *4 inherently incredible that the car, a taxicab, could be operated for two weeks and 1200 miles after the last repair if the braking system were defective in the manner charged. The negligence alleged is the installation of an under-sized rubber cup in one of the brake cylinders, resulting in a defective seal. Although there are many conflicts in the record, there is competent testimony from which the jury could find: (1) that, despite the defective part, the brakes would operate when installed and lose their effectiveness only gradually thereafter, and (2) that appellant’s mechanic was negligent in failing to observe that the cup did not fit properly. Accordingly we find that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Murray was injured when his car was struck by another automobile. The accident was caused by a defective braking system in the other car. Appellees instituted this action against (1) the owner and driver, (2) the seller-repairer, and (3) the manufacturer. Only the seller-repairer was found to be negligent. It appeals, claiming that it is *4 inherently incredible that the car, a taxicab, could be operated for two weeks and 1200 miles after the last repair if the braking system were defective in the manner charged. The negligence alleged is the installation of an under-sized rubber cup in one of the brake cylinders, resulting in a defective seal. Although there are many conflicts in the record, there is competent testimony from which the jury could find: (1) that, despite the defective part, the brakes would operate when installed and lose their effectiveness only gradually thereafter, and (2) that appellant’s mechanic was negligent in failing to observe that the cup did not fit properly. Accordingly we find that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 3, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-motors-inc-v-elbert-w-murray-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack