Hiscox v. Jackson, 7874.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 7874.,7874. |
| Citation | 127 F.2d 160,75 US App. DC 293 |
| Parties | HISCOX v. JACKSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Douglas A. Clark, with whom Mr. Norman E. Sill, both of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Leon M. Shinberg, with whom Messrs. M. Phillip Katz and Philip Shinberg, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, VINSON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
Plaintiff (appellant) brought this action in the Municipal Court for personal injuries and property damage growing out of an automobile accident. The defendant (appellee) admits the ownership of the automobile involved, a taxicab. At the close of all the evidence, the court, after motion, directed a verdict for defendant upon the grounds that (1) defendant's corroborated testimony, that the cab was being operated without his consent, was uncontradicted, and that (2) plaintiff's evidence identifying defendant as the operator of the cab at the time of the accident was insufficient.
The Financial Responsibility Act for the District provides:
"Whenever any motor vehicle, * * * shall be operated * * * by any person other than the owner, with the consent of the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall, in case of accident, be deemed to be the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle, and the proof of the ownership of said motor vehicle shall be prima facie evidence that such person operated said motor vehicle with the consent of the owner."1
Under this Act, with proof that a defendant owned the automobile involved and with no evidence on behalf of the defendant, a plaintiff who has otherwise established liability is entitled to a directed verdict. Instead, in this case, there has been a directed verdict for defendant. To pass from a directed verdict for plaintiff, through the area of jury questions, to a directed verdict for defendant, requires very strong, compelling evidence on behalf of defendant. It requires evidence which destroys all inferences and presumptions supporting plaintiff and which raises no doubts against defendant. Here, we believe that defendant's case is not so strong and plaintiff's so weak as to make a directed verdict for defendant proper.
In Rosenberg v. Murray2 this court said that the statutory "presumption continues until there is credible evidence to the contrary, and ceases when there is uncontradicted proof that the automobile was not at the time being used with the owner's permission."3 The dissent, apparently, had no serious quarrel with this statement of law in the abstract, but stated that the effect of the holding was to make the jury accept defendant's denial, whereas the denial was, on the facts, open to question by some reasonable men. The Municipal Court, in the instant case, concluded that defendant's testimony in respect of the consent issue was corroborated and uncontradicted. We believe, however, that defendant's evidence was not uncontradicted within the meaning of the Rosenberg language.
A reading of the four versions, defendant's and three of his witnesses', reveals what might be considered inconsistencies and self-contradictions, and leaves some doubts as to the absolute credibility of the witnesses — two typical jury functions. This in light of the proposition that defendant's proof may be contradicted by his own evidence. We shall not go into detail, but suggest some of the items which might create doubts or contradictions. (1) Defendant's evidence that the man who was operating the cab at the time of the accident was an acquaintance, possibly a friend, who had turned thief. (2) This acquaintance, defendant, and others, had been together most of the early morning of the day involved. (3) There are variations in the testimony as to what happened during the whole period they were together. And there is at best only slight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaither v. Myers
...that the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility Law, see infra, was inapplicable to Maryland accident. 3 Hiscox v. Jackson, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 127 F.2d 160 (1942); Rosenberg v. Murray, 73 App.D.C. 67, 116 F.2d 552 (1940). 4 232 A.2d at 581. 5 Rosenberg v. Murray, 73 App.D.C. 67, 11......
-
Myers v. Gaither
...v. Murray, 73 App.D.C. 67, 116 F.2d 552 (1940). In such a case, a directed verdict is proper. However, in Hiscox v. Jackson, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 294, 127 F.2d 160, 161 (1942), it was held that where the infirmities in the owner's own evidence contradict his denials, a directed verdict is n......
-
Rice v. Simmons.
...80 L.Ed. 1388; Forrester v. Jerman, 67 App.D.C. 167, 90 F.2d 412; Rosenberg v. Murray, 73 App.D.C. 67, 116 F.2d 552; Hiscox v. Jackson, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 127 F.2d 160; Senator Cab Co., Inc., Rothberg, D.C.Mun.App., 42 A.2d 245. 3Code 1940 (Supp.V.), § 11-756(b). 428 U.S.C.A. following se......
-
Joyner v. Holland
...of proving that his vehicle was not operated with his express or implied consent at the time of collision. See, e.g., Hiscox v. Jackson, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 127 F.2d 160; Lancaster v. Canuel, D.C. App., 193 A.2d 555; Conrad v. Porter, D.C. Mun.App., 79 A.2d 777; also various cases therein ......