TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Squires v. Brooks

Squires v. Brooks, 44 App. D.C. 320 (D.C. Cir. 1916)
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
January 3, 1916
Docket
No. 2844
Judges
Orsdel
Citations
44 App. D.C. 3201916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2601
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Damages; Negligence; Proximate Cause. Where the owner of an automobile, by his agent, leaves the automobile unlocked and unattended in violation of a municipal regulation, and another person making use of the automobile drives it at such a reckless and unlawful rate of speed as to damage the automobile of a third person, the proximate cause of the injury is the negligence of the driver of the car, and not the negligence of the owner’s agent in violating the ordinance; and consequently there can be no recovery against the owner for the injury.
Summary
Hearing on an appeal by tbe plaintiff from a judgment of tbe Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sustaining a demurrer to the declaration in an action to recover damages for injury to an automobile. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This action is based upon the alleged negligence of defendant, Leo O. Brooks, in that his agent left defendant’s automobile standing on a street in the city of Washington, unattended, without first removing the switch-pin, or locking the “lever, throttle, or switch,” as required by sec. 4, art. 24, of the Police Regulations of the District; that, while the automobile was so unattended, some person to plaintiff, Mary L. Squires, unknown, appropriated defendant’s automobile to his own use, and, while driving at a reckless and unlawful rate of speed, collided with plaintiff’s automobile, inflicting the damage for which an award is sought. Prom a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, plaintiff appeals.

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:

The demurrer was properly sustained, since the declaration clearly failed to state a cause of action against defendant. The *322 act of defendant’s agent in leaving tbe automobile on the street unlocked and unattended, in violation of tbe Police Regulations, was not tbe proximate cause of tbe accident. Defendant bad no privity with tbe person wbo appropriated to bis own use bis automobile, and, while so unlawfully using tbe vehicle, inflicted tbe alleged injury. Between plaintiff and defendant an agency intervened, for which defendant was not responsible, and to which tbe accident is directly attributable. It is charged that tbe accident would not have occurred bad defendant’s agent not left tbe automobile unlocked on tbe street. Neither would it have occurred bad not tbe unknown person unlawfully appropriated tbe automobile to bis own use. Tbe first unlawful act was only á remote cause of tbe accident, while tbe second unlawful act was tbe proximate cause. However negligent defendant may have been in violating tbe Police Regulations, be was in no way a party to tbe alleged reckless and unlawful, acts which caused tbe accident.

Tbe judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1943: 11944: 11954: 11972: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Richards v. Stanley271 P.2d 23 (Cal. 1954)
  2. Ross v. Hartman139 F.2d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
  3. Schaff v. R. W. Claxton, Inc.144 F.2d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
  4. Amicar Rentals, Inc. v. Moore294 A.2d 361 (D.C. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Amicar Rentals, Inc. v. Moore294 A.2d 361 (D.C. 1972)
  2. Richards v. Stanley271 P.2d 23 (Cal. 1954)
  3. Schaff v. R. W. Claxton, Inc.144 F.2d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
  4. Ross v. Hartman139 F.2d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

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