Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt

272 F.2d 564

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1959-11-25
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff child suddenly and without warning ran through a thick hedge bordering an alley just as the defendant’s car turned in from the street. She collided with the car which was almost instantly brought to a stop. Following the procedure authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A., and a practice which we have previously approved, 1 the Dis *565 trict Judge allowed the jury to consider the controverted issues as to negligence and contributory negligence. After a plaintiff’s verdict had been returned, he granted the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Elsie Pamela Williams, Through Her Next Friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie Williams, in Her Individual Capacity v. Abraham Greenblatt. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
WILLIAMS v. GREENBLATT,272 F.2d 564(D.C. Cir. 1959)
Elsie Pamela WILLIAMS, through her next friend, Elsie Williams, and Elsie
Williams, in her individual capacity, Appellants, v. Abraham GREENBLATT,
Appellee.
No. 15106.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued November 12, 1959.
Decided November 25, 1959.
Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Thomas J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff child suddenly and without warning ran through a thick hedge bordering an alley just as the defendant's car turned in from the street. She collided with the car which was almost instantly brought to a stop. Following the procedure authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P.50(b),28U.S.C.A., and a practice which we have previously approved,1the DistrictPage 565Judge allowed the jury to consider the controverted issues as to negligence and contributory negligence. After a plaintiff's verdict had been returned, he granted the defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. We are satisfied that in such exercise of his legal discretion no error resulted.2

Affirmed.
  1. We thus are able to test the judge's determination against that of the jury without necessitating a new trial should we find his judgment erroneous. Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102,143 F.2d 142. ↩
  2. Cf. Capital Transit Co. v. Gamble, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 57,160 F.2d 283. ↩