Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece v. Capital Transit Company, a Corporation, Capital Transit Company, a Corporation v. Ada M. Reece and Charles Reece
Ada M. REECE and Charles Reece, Appellants, v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee; CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Ada M. REECE and Charles Reece, Appellees
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.