AF CORPORATION v. Caporaletti
Decision Date | 03 January 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 13273.,13273. |
Parties | A-F CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Betty Lorraine CAPORALETTI, Alfred George Caporaletti, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Frederick W. Grey Leslie, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. H. Max Ammerman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John R. Fitzpatrick, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Stanley M. Dietz and Edward J. Lynch, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
Appellees recovered in the district court for injuries sustained in a fall in the partial collapse of a stairway. The action was predicated on negligence in the construction of an outside stairway on a new home which, pursuant to contract, appellant had built and conveyed to appellees. Among the errors assigned is the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on what constituted negligence; i. e., the failure to give any definitions of ordinary negligence and proximate cause.
Included in the charge to the jury was the following:
At the close of the court's charge to the jury, the court stated to appellant's counsel: "I wonder, Mr. Daily, in order to protect the record, of course you will want to except to the Court's instructions as to the liability," to which appellant's counsel answered, "Yes, Your Honor." The meaning of this colloquy must be considered in the light of the trial court's admonition to both counsel that they should not submit general requested charges, but only such special instructions as might be desired. Some question arises as to whether a specific objection was duly made by counsel to the trial court's failure to define negligence for the jury. But even if appellant be regarded as having failed to make a proper objection, we must nevertheless hold that some definition of what constituted negligence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.
...Engineers, Inc., 176 F.Supp. 159, 164 (D.R.I.1959); Caporaletti v. A-F Corporation, 137 F.Supp. 14 (D.D.C.1956), rev'd, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 240 F.2d 53 (D.C.Cir.1957); Prosser, surpa, § 99, at p. In Dow a general contractor prepared plans and specifications and built a house for Muth. A he......
-
Rogers v. Scyphers
... ... Aaron, (1957) 103 Ohio App. 340, 140 N.E.2d 819; Waggoner v. Midwestern Development Inc., [251 S.C. 134] (S.D.1967) 154 N.W.2d 803; Caporaletti v. A-F Corp., (D.C.1956) 137 F.Supp. 14; Id., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 240 F.2d 53 ... While no implied warranty is asserted or relied ... We quote the following from Caporaletti v. A-F Corporation, D.C., 137 F.Supp. 14; Id., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 240 F.2d 53 ... 'At common law the grantor of real property was not liable for damages caused by ... ...
-
McNello v. John B. Kelly, Inc.
...issue, was reviewed by the Court of Appeals despite the defendant's lack of compliance with Rule 51. Cf. A-F Corp. v. Caporaletti, 1957, 99 U.S.App. D.C. 367, 240 F.2d 53. ...
-
Rothberg v. Olenik
... ... The opinion continued by quoting the following from Caporaletti v. A. F. Corporation, D.C., 137 F.Supp. 14; Id., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 240 F.2d 53. 'Conditions have radically changed since the origin of the ... ...