26 F.2d 534 (D.D.C. 1928), 4642., Curry v. Stevenson

Docket Nº4642.
Citation26 F.2d 534
Party NameCURRY v. STEVENSON.
Case DateMay 07, 1928
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 534

26 F.2d 534 (D.D.C. 1928)

CURRY

v.

STEVENSON.

No. 4642.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

May 7, 1928

Submitted April 4, 1928.

Appeal from Supreme Court of District of Columbia.

Page 535

Foster Wood, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Geo. E. C. Hayes, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District in an action by the appellee (plaintiff below) against the appellant (defendant below) for damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff through being struck by an automobile belonging to the defendant. At the close of the evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict. The motion was overruled, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $3,500.

Evidence for plaintiff was as follows: Between 10:30 and 11 o'clock on the evening or May 25, 1924, plaintiff and his wife were crossing the intersection of Thirteenth and S. Streets, Northwest, in this city, when an automobile making about 40 miles per hour and giving no warning ran into plaintiff, inflicting serious injuries. A Dr. Rogers, who saw the accident, testified that he followed the car, 'and stopped it at Eleventh Street and Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest, telling the driver he had run into a man; that the driver said he would drive back, but turned into a side street and disappeared. ' Dr Rogers took the license number of the automobile and reported it at a police station. This automobile had been registered in the name of defendant. Thereupon plaintiff rested.

Defendant testified that he lived at No. 775 Fairmont Street, Northwest, in this district, and was the owner of the automobile in question; that about May 20, 1924 he gave the automobile to Julius Tryman 'under an agreement to sell the car to him if the automobile was in satisfactory running condition. that Julius Tryman had the car the night of May 25, 1924; that police officers came to his (defendant's) home that night and inquired about the car; that he told the officers that Mr. Julius Tryman had the machine, giving them his address; that he (defendant) knew nothing about the accident and did not have a car that night; that he received no money from Mr. Tryman on account of this agreement referred to by him.'

Tryman was called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, and testified that he received the automobile from defendant about May 20, 1924, 'under an agreement whereby he was to purchase the machine if it was in satisfactory running condition, and that he had the automobile on the night of the accident, May 25, 1924; that he was driving the automobile on that night, and returned home with the automobile about 10:30 p.m., and retired for the night, leaving the automobile parked in front of the Westmoreland Apartments, at which place he was employed and had his residence; that he was awakened on the night in question at an early hour in the morning by police officers flashing a 'light in his face, but that he did not get up out of bed; that he told the officers he had the automobile; that he had not been in any accident; that the automobile was in front of the apartment and the next morning, exactly where he had parked it the night before.'

It has come to be the general rule that, in an action for injuries resulting from being struck by an automobile, proof that the automobile was owned by the defendant at the time of the accident establishes a prima facie case for the plaintiff. In other words, proof of defendant's ownership of an automobile that has been driven on the public highway warrants the inference that it was in his possession, either personally or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • 133 P.2d 206 (Okla. 1942), 29584, Norton v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 24, 1942
    ...by undisputed proof to the contrary, the question becomes one for the court, and not the jury. Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 26 F.2d 534. If, however, the evidence is reasonably subject to contradictory interpretations, the question of liability of the defendants is for the jury. Tis......
  • 404 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1968), 21247, Gaither v. Myers
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 10, 1968
    ...is a mere ingredient of, and does not establish the agency. See, e.g., Forrester v. Jerman, supra; Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 26 F.2d 534 (1928); State, Use of Shipley v. Walker, 230 Md. 133, 186 A.2d 472 (1962); Miller v. Shegogue, 221 Md. 292, 157 A.2d 272 [6] See Knight v. Hand......
  • 33 P.2d 351 (Idaho 1934), 6103, Gordon v. Rose
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 29, 1934
    ...such other was his agent and within the scope of his employment. (Anderson, An Automobile Accident Suit, pP. 324, 325; Curry v. Stevenson, 26 F.2d 534, 58 App. D. C. 162; Willi v. Schaefer Hitchcock Co., 53 Idaho 367, 25 P.2d 167.) The complaint in this action is sufficient under the family......
  • 232 A.2d 577 (D.C. 1967), 3937, Myers v. Gaither
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • August 10, 1967
    ...rule of evidence applicable here was established long before the enactment of Section 40-424. In Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 163, 26 F.2d 534, 535 (1928), it was It has come to be the general rule that, in an action for injuries resulting from being struck by an automobile, proof t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • 232 A.2d 577 (D.C. 1967), 3937, Myers v. Gaither
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • August 10, 1967
    ...rule of evidence applicable here was established long before the enactment of Section 40-424. In Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 163, 26 F.2d 534, 535 (1928), it was It has come to be the general rule that, in an action for injuries resulting from being struck by an automobile, proof t......
  • 33 P.2d 351 (Idaho 1934), 6103, Gordon v. Rose
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 29, 1934
    ...such other was his agent and within the scope of his employment. (Anderson, An Automobile Accident Suit, pP. 324, 325; Curry v. Stevenson, 26 F.2d 534, 58 App. D. C. 162; Willi v. Schaefer Hitchcock Co., 53 Idaho 367, 25 P.2d 167.) The complaint in this action is sufficient under the family......
  • 133 P.2d 206 (Okla. 1942), 29584, Norton v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 24, 1942
    ...by undisputed proof to the contrary, the question becomes one for the court, and not the jury. Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 26 F.2d 534. If, however, the evidence is reasonably subject to contradictory interpretations, the question of liability of the defendants is for the jury. Tis......
  • 404 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1968), 21247, Gaither v. Myers
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 10, 1968
    ...is a mere ingredient of, and does not establish the agency. See, e.g., Forrester v. Jerman, supra; Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 26 F.2d 534 (1928); State, Use of Shipley v. Walker, 230 Md. 133, 186 A.2d 472 (1962); Miller v. Shegogue, 221 Md. 292, 157 A.2d 272 [6] See Knight v. Hand......
  • Request a trial to view additional results