District of Columbia v. Leys, 5536.

Decision Date27 June 1932
Docket NumberNo. 5536.,5536.
Citation63 F.2d 646,62 App. DC 3
PartiesDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. LEYS (two cases).
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

William W. Bride, Vernon E. West, and Thomas F. Cameron, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Alvin L. Newmyer, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and HITZ and GRONER, Associate Justices.

HITZ, Associate Justice.

These two appeals are taken by the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, defendant below, from judgments on verdicts for the appellees, who were plaintiffs below.

The actions were brought by a husband and wife for damages because of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff wife through a fall on a sidewalk in the city of Washington alleged to have been negligently maintained by the District of Columbia.

The two plaintiffs testified that at about 6:30 p. m. on January 17, 1926, they alighted from a street car at First and B streets Southeast, intending to walk to a restaurant at 109 B street.

They walked in an easterly direction on the south sidewalk of B street, and when they were in front of house No. 107, and about to reach No. 109, the plaintiff wife fell to the sidewalk, sustaining injuries to her mouth and teeth, her right hand, knee, and ankle; the injury to the hand being apparently the most serious and permanent.

She testified that the fall was caused by a depression or hole in the brick portion of the sidewalk, which was paved partly with brick and partly with cement blocks.

The husband testified that after she fell he ran his hand along where her foot was in the hole and there found a loose brick under her foot. He carried her to a doctor a few doors to the east in the same block, who gave her first aid and treated her for several days, after which she went to New York.

For a long period thereafter she was treated from time to time by two other physicians, principally for the injury to her hand, which seems to have caused much pain and inconvenience, at least up to the time of trial, and with prospects of continuance.

The husband testified that he had accompanied his wife when she went to her doctors, and had incurred doctors' bills in New York and vicinity aggregating $750.

The doctor who treated the wife in Washington testified as to her injuries; that his office was near the scene of the accident; that he had been familiar with the sidewalk there for many years; that half of the sidewalk was brick and the other half cement blocks, the brick portion being next to the building line, that the bricks were many years old, and that on the day after the accident he went there and saw that the walk was very uneven; some of the bricks being cracked in two, and some greatly worn by traffic.

The defendant's witnesses, who were policemen on duty in the neighborhood and business men thereabouts, testified that they were familiar with the condition of the pavement at the time of the accident, and that it was not bad.

The jury returned verdicts of $7,500 for the wife, and $200 for the husband.

The first of the five errors assigned is to the action of the court in permitting the plaintiffs to further amend their declaration by changing the allegation of the location of the hole in the sidewalk.

The earlier declarations placed the hole in front of house No. 109 B street, while the amendment placed it next door in front of No. 107.

But amendments that do not state a new cause of action are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and the causes of action stated in these declarations were clearly the same, though the point where they arose is differently described by a few feet in the amendments. We find no error here. Howard v. C. & O. Railway Co., 11 App. D. C. 336; Magruder v. Belt, 7 App. D. C. 312; Wright v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet. 165, 168, 7 L. Ed. 96; Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 9 S. Ct. 426, 32 L. Ed. 800; Lincoln v. Virginia Portland Cement Co., 49 App. D. C. 33, 258 F. 505.

The second assignment is that the court erred by admitting in evidence certain bills for medical services rendered to the husband, but unpaid at the time of the trial; while the third assignment asserts error in permitting the husband to testify regarding those services and the charges therefor.

But the husband accompanied his wife upon her visits to her physicians and testified what they had charged him for their ministrations to her, and the bills were cumulative evidence for whatever they might be worth, if anything. The extent to which cumulative testimony shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Brown v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 2, 1984
    ...by Congress in 1933, at least partially in response to this court's en banc decision and recommendation in District of Columbia v. Leys, 63 F.2d 646, 648 (D.C.Cir.1932) (on rehearing), cert. denied, 289 U.S. 756, 53 S.Ct. 787, 77 L.Ed. 1500 (1933). See Pub.L. No. 72-385, 47 STAT. 1370 (1933......
  • Tucci v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 2008
    ...given. Congress enacted what is now § 12-309 in 1933,7 at least partially in response to the decision in District of Columbia v. Leys, 62 App. D.C. 3, 5, 63 F.2d 646, 648 (1933) (on rehearing). See Brown v. United States, 239 U.S.App. D.C. 345, 348, 742 F.2d 1498, 1501 (1984) (en banc) (exp......
  • Manbeck v. Ostrowski, 20203.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 28, 1967
    ...110 A.L. R. 393 (1936); Campbell v. District of Columbia, 64 App.D.C. 375, 379, 78 F.2d 725, 729 (1935); District of Columbia v. Leys, 62 App.D.C. 3, 4, 63 F.2d 646, 647 (1932), cert. denied 289 U.S. 756, 53 S.Ct. 787, 77 L.Ed. 1500 (1933); Trometer v. District of Columbia, 24 App.D.C. 242,......
  • Hirshfeld v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 13, 1958
    ...to show notice * * * to the District of Columbia through the Commissioners, as required by the statute." In deciding District of Columbia v. Leys, 62 App.D.C. 3, 63 F.2d 646, in 1932, this court referred to the difficulty a large municipality encounters in defending tort actions for injurie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT