*1 Jgg McInerney, Washington, Mr. Wilbert KUZMINSKY, Appellant, C., appellee. D. Louis for Mr. John S. Mc Inerney, Washington, C.,D. also entered an appellee. for WOODARD, Appellee. Leroy No. 16496. Fahy Before and Dana- Edgerton, Judges. Circuit her, of Columbia Circuit. 2, Argued May PER CURIAM. 6, personal injuries suit this
District Court directed a verdict for the jury defendant after a had failed to agree. We think there should be-a new trial. testified that he was
standing in a crosswalk when he was struck the defendant’s car. The de fendant testified in plain effect that the stepped off a the car. Which typical jury version is correct ais question. jury plain If believed the version, might reasonably tiff’s it con negligent clude that the defendant was failing yield way to a pedestrian. D.C.Traffic and Motor Ve Regulations, I, hicle 52(a), 54; Pt. §§ Slaybaugh, Griffith v. 239, 437, Peck v. th States, (4 United Cir. 1952); Danaher, Judge, Metropolitan Circuit Henkelmann v. dissented. 591, Life Ins. 180 Md. 26 A.2d jury questions Other are whether the was contribu torily negligent, was, whether defendant exercise due care should have observed that was oblivious to the car’s steps taken which he did not take to avoid the accident. Transit Co. Garcia, U.S.App.D.C. 168, 194 F.2d Reversed and remanded. DANAHER, Judge (dissent- Circuit ing). Since was burden Genn, Washington, injury Edward D. establish and George C., Jacobi, alleged, whom if the trial Wash- at the close ington, was on the the case that the evi- pellant. support dence was insufficient to
196 1 granted conditions, element, properly side. Fie took note of traffic observing could have he a directed his there were motion on defendant’s the Georgia coming Instead, awith several on accordance cars south in verdict. repeatedly Avenue. There was a car headed north practice have which we Judge well, ac- as ing and Tittlebaum was wait- proved,2 reserved the pass. Fed.R.Civ.P. the traffic to He had the under motion tion on that plaintiff couple U.S.C.A., a 50(b), could under observation for and he 28 during v., plain- a of granted judgment seconds which the n. o. even time standing returned. in was crosswalk “be- plaintiff’s had been the verdict loading platform.” viewing most favor- did not evidence the He the After judge here ably plaintiff, see the car at southbound the defendant’s impact, plaintiff not en- was the of had ob- moment but he that the should I we served its it was think and that to recover. titled traveling tracks, on the streetcar where affirm.3 collision, stopped. after the morning, August bright clear, aOn plaintiff The next called the defendant of stepping curb the west before off as an adverse was witness. His car testified, Avenue, Georgia plaintiff the traveling per 22 miles about hour. As ways, traffic. no both saw he looked approached the defendant the northern Georgia Avenue, and runs north which loading platform, end of the he first saw south, of two lanes traffic carries facing easterly the tion, in an direc- plain- trolley The a track. double side of standing tip on the southern Georgia easterly out into tiff walked Avenue, loading platform. As the defend- eight steps. taking or seven passing ant the streetcar was stopped- crosswalk, he the he Then in speed he reduced the of car his to 20 approaching from car a northbound saw per plain- miles He the hour. watched right. his passed tiff as I he stood there “until had point Thus, testified, a he stood at he him,” he when became aware of a “sort the of west rail of or west a foot brushing effect the car.” in collision when he tracks was streetcar plaintiff’s That was the whole case. coming car, from plaintiff The did not look to his left plaintiff’s was left. latter The main as he crossed one the District’s Georgia Avenue, travel- on southbound ing arteries. He never defendant’s saw the point im- car tracks. The in the undue car. He offered no speed. as to evidence end of a street- pact was at the south presented fail- He no evidence of platform which the car proper to maintain a lookout ure on long. 90 feet was about testified part contrary, of the defendant. On the plaintiff never saw the southbound The presented a own case sit- defendant; operated he had car kept had uation which the defendant leaving his left after to not looked the plaintiff under observation. not He did know with what curbstone. part standing there, not was cross- “I was in the car he contact. moving ing, position from a of safe- not hooked,” I That was testified. know ty. The defendant was entitled as- plaintiff’s evidence. sume approached, the car as it seen Irving having ordinary one called as a witness made He senses, blindly The latter was seated his would not walk Tittlebaum. use of danger. position on Street which headed west Otis these cir- a truck into Georgia cumstances, facts, on Avenue the east on otherwise intersects Capital Koontz, Transit 79 v. Skinner Shewmaker U.S.App.D.C. F.2d Greenblatt, 106 U.S. and see Williams Ibid. does Transit v. Garcia4 Co. apply. here nothing suggest that the
There
trial concluded that guilty contributory law, matter of need granting decided. Even
every intendment, favorable
judge properly decided that the entirely prove failed to that unreason- improper
able or defend- conduct produced
ant had harm. Something speculation more than
conjecture necessary to establish lia- bility.5 indulge spec- Were I in such ulation, readily conjecture I could looking,
the right without
into the
car.
I would affirm.
LOCAL INTERNATIONAL BROTH- TEAMSTERS, ERHOOD OF CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND AMERICA, al., HELPERS OF et Peti- tioners,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 16250. Appeals Court District of Columbia Circuit. Carmell, Ill., Chicago, Sherman Argued May 2, Supreme bar of Court of Illinois, pro vice, by special hac leave court, with whom Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C. was on petitioners. Messrs. James Murtha, F. Carroll and Donald M. ington, Wash entered an
petitioners. Welles, Atty., J. Melvin N. B.,
R. of the bar of the 4. U.S.App.D.C. 168, Koontz, supra 5. Skinner v. note And Gamble, see Transit Co. v. F.2d 283