District of Columbia v. Manning, 4448.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4448.,4448.
• Citation: 53 ALR 167,18 F.2d 806
• Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. MANNING.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

53 ALR 167, 18 F.2d 806 (1927)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. MANNING.

No. 4448.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted January 4, 1927.

Decided April 4, 1927.

F. H. Stephens and F. W. Madigan, both of Washington, D. C., for the District of Columbia.

T. L. Jeffords and H. B. Moulton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, the District of Columbia, appeals from a judgment rendered in the Supreme Court of the District for damages for personal injuries sustained by the appellee, Fraud Manning.

It appears that at about 6:45 p. m. November 8, 1923, appellee, plaintiff below, alighted from a street car at Fourteenth and H streets, N. W., in the city of Washington. After stepping to the street, she took two steps in a southwesterly direction, when her foot struck the marker at the southwest end of the safety zone, where she fell and was injured.

These safety zones are laid out at the principal street car stopping places throughout the city, more particularly in the congested sections of the city. They are in the shape of a rectangle, extending parallel with the track and indicated by broad white painted lines on the surface of the street. At the outside corners of the rectangle are placed cast iron markers, painted white, weighing about 100 pounds, 18 inches in diameter, having a corrugated surface, the lines of corrugation radiating from the center and top to the outer edge. These markers are referred to as "turtle-backs," "mushrooms," or "buttons."

At the close of the case counsel for the defendant moved for a directed verdict, on the ground that the safety zones were created and the metal markers placed in position on the street as the result of a general plan for the protection of the public; that the one here in question was identical with others in use in the District of Columbia for the same purpose, and similar in construction and dimensions to markers in general use in many cities throughout the United States. It was accordingly contended:

(1) "That the municipality is not liable to respond in damages for consequences following upon the execution by the municipality of anything done or performed in conformity with a general plan or scheme."

(2) "That the jury be instructed to render a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the button in question was a device placed in the street to mark a safety zone for the protection of the public generally, and was therefore a lawful obstruction, and not in any wise defective or out of repair."

In addition to these two grounds, error is assigned generally on the failure of the court to...