TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

District of Columbia v. Donaldson

Dist. of Columbia v. Donaldson, 38 App. D.C. 259 (D.C. Cir. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 5, 1912
Docket
No. 2334
Judges
Orsdel
Citations
38 App. D.C. 2591912 U.S. App. LEXIS 2117
Disposition
Reversed.
Syllabus
Municipal Corporations; Pleading; Variance. Where, in a personal injury action against a municipality, the declaration charges that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by a defect in the sidewalk, while the evidence shows that the defect was not in the sidewalk, but on a path leading from it across a parking, and temporarily used by the public during a period of snow and ice, to avoid passing over the place described in the declaration, — the variance between the allegation and proof is fatal, and a verdict for the defendant should be granted.
Summary
Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on verdict, in an action for personal injuries. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Orsdel

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellee, Laura V. Donaldson, plaintiff below, secured a judgment against the District of Columbia for damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall. In her declaration she specifically charged that the accident occurred on a sidewalk where defendant had negligently left a “precipitous descent, or incline, unpaved, ungraded, and unguarded, and dangerous to persons passing” thereon. The evidence disclosed that the accident did not occur on the sidewalk, but on a path leading from the sidewalk across the parking, and temporarily used by the public during a period of snow and ice, to avoid passing over the place described in the declaration. The variance between the allegations and the proof is fatal. The motion of defendant for an instructed verdict in its favor should have been granted. The judgment is reversed with costs, and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 21962: 119362026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Broder v. District of Columbia184 A.2d 741 (D.C. 1962)
  2. Parker v. Salvation Army83 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
  3. Covell v. District of Columbia83 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Broder v. District of Columbia184 A.2d 741 (D.C. 1962)
  2. Covell v. District of Columbia83 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
  3. Parker v. Salvation Army83 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1936)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list