Utley v. Henley Ex Rel. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Utley v. Henley Ex Rel. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance

108 A.2d 93, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 180

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 8, 1954

Docket1543

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.2d 93 (Utley v. Henley Ex Rel. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance) 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

Utley v. Henley Ex Rel. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance, 108 A.2d 93, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 180 (D.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

This case arose out of a collision between two automobiles in an intersection controlled by traffic lights. Judgment went against appellants and their appeal is based largely on the claim that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We cannot agree with this claim because it assumes the truth of appellants’ testimony that they entered the intersection on a green light, were stopped in their progress by a third automobile making a left-hand turn, and then proceeded at a speed of 15 miles an hour to clear the intersection on a red light. From all the testimony the court could have found that appellants entered the intersection on a red light and were traveling at a speed of 40 miles an hour. If the court so found then it was not compelled to find appellee guilty of contributory negligence in failing to anticipate such action on appellants’ part.

Affirmed.

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

HOOD, Associate Judge.

This case arose out of a collision between two automobiles in an intersection controlled by traffic lights. Judgment went against appellants and their appeal is based largely on the claim that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We cannot agree with this claim because it assumes the truth of appellants’ testimony that they entered the intersection on a green light, were stopped in their progress by a third automobile making a left-hand turn, and then proceeded at a speed of 15 miles an hour to clear the intersection on a red light. From all the testimony the court could have found that appellants entered the intersection on a red light and were traveling at a speed of 40 miles an hour. If the court so found then it was not compelled to find appellee guilty of contributory negligence in failing to anticipate such action on appellants’ part.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.2d 93, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/utley-v-henley-ex-rel-farm-bureau-mutual-automobile-insurance-dc-1954.