Denver Omnibus & Cab Co. v. Krebs
| Decision Date | 15 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 5033. |
| Citation | 255 F. 543 |
| Parties | DENVER OMNIBUS & CAB CO. v. KREBS. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John A Deweese and Charles A. Prentice, both of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error.
J. W Kelley and Eselyn B. Kelley, both of Denver, Colo., for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
For convenience the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below, the defendant in error as plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error as defendant.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendant. The complaint charged that, while the plaintiff was walking across a public crossing on a public street in the city of Denver, an employe of the defendant, driving at a reckless speed one of the taxicabs of the defendant negligently, recklessly, and carelessly struck the plaintiff seriously injuring her. The answer, in addition to general denials, pleaded contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
Upon a trial to a jury a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was returned, upon which judgment was entered, which it is sought to reverse by this writ of error. There are several errors assigned to the admission of evidence and also the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
One of the objections to the evidence is the admission of that part of the testimony of a witness, who was a passenger in the taxicab which struck the plaintiff and inflicted the alleged injury. He testified that:
'When passing the place where the injury occurred the car suddenly swerved. When he asked the chauffeur what was the trouble, he kept on going and replied: 'I nearly hit a woman.' I said: 'Hadn't we better go look and see if she is hurt?' He replied: 'No; I didn't hit her; I just missed her.' As the machine continued, I noticed that the uptown bound street car had stopped, and I called the attention to the chauffeur to that fact, whereupon he said: 'I am pretty sure I didn't hit her."
As the chauffeur was the agent of the defendant, his statements, made at the time of the accident, and while in the discharge of his duties as a chauffeur of a taxicab carrying a passenger, were clearly admissible as a part of the res gestae. 2 Chamberlayne on the Modern Law of Evidence, Sec. 1344; 16 Cyc. p. 1242.
Did the court err in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff and the witness Lucas as to the speed the taxicab was running, as they had not qualified as experts, it is claimed? The plaintiff testified that she had frequently ridden in automobiles, and knew about their speed. The witness Lucas testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overland Const. Co. v. Sydnor, 6437.
...On this point this case is ruled by Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. A. 6) 78 F. 693, 69 L. R. A. 705, supra. And see Denver Omnibus & Cab Co. v. Krebs (C. C. A. 8) 255 F. 543. The declarations sought to be admitted in Cyborowski v. Kinsman Transit Co. (C. C. A. 6) 179 F. 440, were not part of th......
-
Piedmont Operating Co v. Cummings, (No. 19198.)
...when made as part of the res gestae, are relevant and admissible. Render v. Hill, 30 Ga. App. 239, 117 S. E. 258; Denver Omnibus & Cab Co. v. Krebs (C. C. A.) 255 F. 543. In a suit against a hotel company to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of the autom......
- Rahm v. City of Vicksburg
-
Piedmont Operating Co. v. Cummings
... ... are relevant and admissible. Render v. Hill, 30 ... Ga.App. 239, 117 S.E. 258; Denver Omnibus & Cab Co. v ... Krebs (C.C.A.) 255 F. 543. In a suit against a hotel ... company to ... ...