Cox v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 10 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1731.,1731. |
| Citation | 120 A.2d 214 |
| Parties | Gilbert COX, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, a body corporate, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C., with whom Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
In an action for personal injuries appellant obtained a verdict for $7,500 against appellee railroad company. On motion the trial court set aside the verdict and directed entry of judgment in favor of the railroad company. The trial court based its action on the ground that appellant as a matter of law was contributorily negligent. This appeal questions the correctness of such action.
Appellant, who was plant superintendent of a scrap iron dealer, testified that some bundles of tin belonging to his employer had fallen over a retaining wall onto the railroad yard; that he called the railroad and obtained permission to take a crane and truck into the yard to remove the bundles; that in order to do so it was necessary to cross certain railroad tracks and the railroad promised the tracks would be blocked while he was there; that he drove the truck into the yard and a fellow employee drove the crane; that he took one truckload out and when he was returning for a second load the truck stalled on one of the tracks; that for about two minutes he tried unsuccessfully to start the truck; that he suddenly saw a train approaching on the track; that he had heard no horn or bell, and when he first saw the train it was about 300 yards away and was traveling at a speed of 25 or 30 miles an hour; and that he was still in the truck when it was struck by the train, and he was injured.
With respect to what efforts he made to get out of the truck before the collision, appellant on direct examination testified:
On cross-examination appellant's testimony was:
Upon such testimony the trial court reasoned:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros.
...alternatively, the motion for a new trial. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 50(c); Spain v. McNeal, 337 A.2d 507, 511 (D.C.1975); Cox v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 120 A.2d 214, 217 (D.C.1956). We may review the action of the trial court on both motions. Hines v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 379 A.2d 1174, 1176 (D.C.1......
-
Smith v. Executive Club, Ltd.
...at 353.) The court had earlier cited Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., D.C.App., 379 A.2d 685 (1977); and Cox v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., D.C.Mun. App., 120 A.2d 214 (1956), to support this ruling. Appellant now claims that the trial court erred in several respects in setting aside the j......
-
Powell v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Company
...Schenley Industries, Inc., 278 F.2d 79 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 58, 5 L.Ed.2d 60 (1960); Cox v. Pennsylvania R. R., 120 A.2d 214 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1956); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1302.1 at 346-47 (Wright ed. 1958); 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶......
-
Tan Top Cab Company v. Shiller, 1831.
...on behalf of defendants. 2. Abel v. First Security Insurance Company of America, D.C.Mun.App., 120 A.26 586; Cox v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, D.C.Mun.App., 120 A.2d 214; Singer v. Murphy, D.C.Mun.App., 109 A. 2d 379; Situ v. Basinger, D.C.Mun.App., 57 A.2d 295; Hochschild, Kohn & Co. v......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 50 Judgment As a Matter of Law In a Jury Trial; Related Motion For a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
...Schenley Industries, Inc., 278 F.2d 79 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 58, 5 L.Ed.2d 60 (1960); Cox v. Pennsylvania R.R., 120 A.2d 214 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App. 1956); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure §1302.1 at 346-47 (Wright ed. 1958); 6 Moore's Federal Practice ......