U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1954

Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 22, 1954 · Clark, Fahy, Per Curiam, Washington

214 F.2d 241; 94 U.S. App. D.C. 95; 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2683 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mrs. Katherine M. Staley and Mr. James F. Sharkey, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Harry L. Cohen, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. Paul R. Connolly, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Mr. George D. Horn-ing, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Perrino v. D. C. Transit System, Inc. (D.C. 1966)
Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Hryn v. Capital Transit Co. (D.C. 1955)
Mrs. Ethel Burns (Wiggins) Marshall v. Capital Transit Company (D.C. Cir. 1954)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*242 PER CURIAM.

In an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellee, in connection with a fall of appellant in alighting from one of appellee’s buses, the District Court at the conclusion of appellant’s case directed a verdict in favor of appellee because of insufficient evidence of negligence. We affirm. The cause of the fall was left in such uncertainty at the conclusion of appellant’s case that to permit the jury to attribute the claimed injuries to the negligence of appel-lee would be too speculative to warrant submission of the issue to them.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.