D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 20 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2738.,2738. |
| Citation | 173 A.2d 216 |
| Parties | D. C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, v. Beulah Diggs SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776(b).
This appeal is from a judgment on a jury verdict in favor of a passenger on a bus for personal injuries suffered when she slipped and fell in alighting from the bus. The appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The question was properly reserved by motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence and by motion for judgment n.o.v.
There is no dispute that appellee was a passenger on the bus and that she fell while attempting to descend from the bus at the rear door. There were two issues at trial. First, what was the cause of the fall; and, second, was the carrier responsible for that cause.
Appellee testified that when she put her foot on the first step she "slipped and fell flat"; but that she did not know what caused her to fall. Another passenger, however, testified that immediately after appellee fell she saw on each of the two steps a round spot, about the size of a silver dollar; that the spots "looked like oil or grease"; that she put her finger on one spot and it "felt slippery like grease." This witness's testimony was corroborated to the extent that a third passenger testified she heard the witness say "Here it is" and saw her holding up her hand on which was "something black like grease or oil." The carrier produced a number of witnesses who testified that they examined the steps immediately after the fall and found no grease or oil on them; but in view of the verdict of the jury we must accept the evidence that there were spots on the steps. Whether there was evidence that the spot caused the fall is debatable, because the only witness who saw the spot said there were no slide or scuff marks on it and when appellee examined her shoes after the fall she found no grease or oil on them. Assuming that the jury could properly find that the spot was the cause of the fall, the question remains whether the jury could properly find that the fall was due to the negligence of the carrier.
We have ruled that the high degree of care owed by a common carrier to its passengers extends to them when boarding and alighting;1 but a carrier is not an insurer and before it can be held liable for injury to a passenger there must be proof of negligence, or facts from which negligence may be inferred, on the part of the carrier.2 No presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier arises from the mere fact that a passenger falls or slips because of some article or material on the floor or steps of the vehicle. The carrier is liable only when it is shown that it had notice, actual or constructive, of the obstruction in time to remove it and failed to do so.3
In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace v. Kumalaa
...fails to show that the mat was improperly laid or maintained. Finlayson v. Bryan, 56 N.D. 407, 217 N.W. 662; cf., D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Smith, 173 A.2d 216 (Munic.Ct. of App.D.C.1961); Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 26 Ill.App.2d 139, 167 N.E.2d The minor plaintiff had ridd......
-
Washington Metro. Transit Auth. v. Jeanty, 96-CV-862
...the Supreme Court did in Roy, supra, 102 U.S. at 456, that a carrier is not an insurer of its passengers' safety. D.C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 173 A.2d 216, 217 (D.C.1961). On the contrary, the passenger has the burden of proving negligence, i.e., that the carrier failed to exercise re......
-
Sebastian v. District of Columbia
...highest degree of care; however, before it can be held liable there must be proof of negligence); District of Columbia Transit Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 173 A.2d 216, 217 (D.C.1961) ("We have ruled that the high degree of care owed by a common carrier to its passengers extends to them when board......
-
Reyen v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas Inc.
...are those who have boarded a common carrier or are in the process of boarding or alighting from one. See D.C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 173 A.2d 216, 216 (D.C. 1961). If not onboard, an individual may be owed a special duty of care "if the property upon which an individual stands when in......