U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 1, 1956 · Miller, Bazelon, Bastian

230 F.2d 824; 97 U.S. App. D.C. 274 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Howard J. McGrath, Washington, D. C., for appellants in No. 12762 and appellees in No. 12763., Mr. Francis L. Casey, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee in No. 12762 and appellant in No. 12763.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Robert Livingston Pomeroy, of the Estate of Elizabeth Eagan Pomeroy (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Logsdon v. Baker (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Logsdon v. Baker (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Jaramillo v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
PEPSI COLA COMPANY v. Waddell (D.C. 1973)
Courtney v. Giant Food, Inc. (D.C. 1966)
Ruffin v. Trans-Lux Theatre (D.C. 1959)
Fine v. Giant Food Stores, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1958)
Bess O'Melveny MacMaugh v. Mrs. David Baldwin (D.C. Cir. 1956)

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

PER CURIAM.

Ada M. Reece was injured in alighting from a Capital Transit bus, which had.stopped two or three feet from the curb at a point where melting snow had formed a puddle of water some 18 inches wide between the bus stop and the curb. It was daylight. Passengers- ahead of Mrs. Reece reached the sidewalk safely, but she fell as she attempted to go from, the bus to the curb.

The injured woman and her husband sued the Capital Transit Company and a jury returned verdicts in their favor. The transit company’s motion for a new trial was denied and it appeals, No. 12,-763. But on its alternative motion, judgments non obstante veredicto were awarded to the defendant and the Reec-es appeal from those judgments, No. 12,-762.

The evidence left the cause of Mrs. Reece’s fall so uncertain that the jury should not have been permitted to speculate that her injuries were attributable to the appellee’s negligence. Judgments n. o. v. were therefore properly entered. Kieffer v. Capital Transit Co., 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 214 F.2d 241; Marshall v. Capital Transit Co., 1954, 95 U.S.App. D.C. 1, 216 F.2d 636; Swank v. Capital Transit Co., 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 220 F.2d 807.

Judgments in No. 12762 affirmed; appeal in No. 12763 dismissed as moot.

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