Carter v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 28 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 3778.,3778. |
| Citation | 219 A.2d 114 |
| Parties | Augusta A. CARTER and to the Use of General Accident Group, Appellants, v. Joseph SINGLETON, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Austin F. Canfield, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Thomas J. Scanlon, Washington, D. C., with whom Howard J. McGrath, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
This action arose from a collision between two automobiles at a street intersection. Appellant, proceeding east on T Street, stopped for a stop sign at the intersection of T and 4th Street, and then drove into the intersection. Before he cleared the intersection his automobile was struck by appellee's automobile, which was going south on 4th Street. Appellant's automobile was totally wrecked and his insurer paid him $2,385 on a $100 deductible policy. Appellee's automobile was damaged to the extent of $825. A jury returned verdicts in favor of appellant and his insurer, and found against appellee on his counterclaim. The trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in the alternative ordered a new trial. This appeal contends that the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict was error.
In granting judgment n.o.v. the trial court ruled as a matter of law that appellant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way. We have, ruled on many occasions that ordinarily questions of negligence and contributory negligence, especially in automobile collision cases, are questions for the jury. Only in the exceptional case, where the facts are undisputed and Where but one reasonable inference can be drawn, is the court justified in holding that negligence or contributory negligence has been established as a matter of law.1
Appellant testified that he stopped at the stop sign and because his vision was obscured he eased his car forward to the curb line where he could see three or four blocks north on 4th Street and observed appellee's car coming from his left, about two short blocks away, that he noticed nothing unusual about its speed and he figured that it was a sufficient distance away to permit him to cross safely. He proceeded into the intersection at a normal acceleration, but after getting into the intersection he observed appellee's car very close and he attempted to accelerate in an effort to clear the intersection ahead of the oncoming car. As his car reached the middle of the intersection, it was struck broadside behind the front door by appellee's car.
An officer of the Accident Investigation Unit, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WASHINGTON v. A & H GARCIAS TRASH HAULING
...holding that the presence or absence of negligence or contributory negligence has been established as a matter of law. Carter v. Singleton, 219 A.2d 114, 115 (D.C. 1966). This is not such a The basic thrust of Mr. Washington's testimony was that he was riding lawfully in the curb lane when ......
-
Wash. Met. Area Transit Auth. v. Jones, 79-293.
...contributory negligence or proximate cause. D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Harris, D.C.App., 284 A.2d 277 (1971); Carter v. Singleton, D.C. App., 219 A.2d 114, 115 (1966). In the instant case, there was conflicting testimony on basic factual issues; and several inferences could reasonably be ......
-
Spain v. McNeal
...properly hold that contributory negligence has been established as a matter of law. Singer v. Doyle, supra at 438; Carter v. Singleton, D.C.App., 219 A.2d 114, 115 (1966); Phillips v. D. C. Transit System, Inc., D.C.App., 198 A.2d 740, 741 In an intersectional collision case, a plaintiff ma......
-
D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Harris, 5717.
...one conclusion may be drawn that a trial court may find negligence or contributory negligence as a matter of law. Carter v. Singleton, D.C.App., 219 A.2d 114, 115 (1966); Brown v. Clancy, D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 296, 297 (1945). In this case we believe the facts are such that just one inferen......