District of Columbia v. Tilghman
Decision Date | 02 February 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 2446.,2446. |
Parties | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Hugh J. TILGHMAN in his own right and to the use of the Eastern Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., argued for appellant. Chester H. Cray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, Hubert B. Pair and Ted D. Kuemmerling, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Samuel F. Ianni, Washington, D. C., with whom John L. Schroeder, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and. HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellees sued for damages resulting from a collision between appellee-Tilghman's car and a truck owned by appellant and operated by one of its employees. Trial was to the court and at the close of appellees' case, the District moved for a finding in its favor, which motion was denied. The District elected tostand on its motion and offered no evidence. Judgment was entered for appellees and this appeal followed. The case coming to us in this posture, we, like the trial court, must view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellees, giving them the benefit of every inference that might reasonably be drawn from the evidence and resolving all conflicts in their favor.1
These are the facts: A District truck driver was driving a loaded truck on a public street, traveling on a downgrade. The brakes suddenly failed and the driver attempted to avoid a collision with several cars and trucks ahead of him by turning to his left into a vacant lot piled with bricks. Before turning, he noticed Tilghman's vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. It was in its proper lane. He turned into its path and the collision occurred. He testified:
No question is raised concerning contributory negligence, the problem being whether the District was negligent.
The District advances these contentions: (1) It exercised reasonable care in maintaining the brake mechanism on its truck prior to the accident; and (2) its driver, confronted with a sudden emergency, acted reasonably and prudently in attempting to avoid the collision. Accordingly, the District maintains that to be held liable in this situation would impose liability without fault. With this position we cannot agree. We have no doubt that the truck driver was confronted with an emergency; however, there was other evidence.
Concerning the inspection given to the District's trucks, the following testimony was adduced:
In view of this testimony, we think a finding of negligence could have been made when the District elected to stand on its motion and offered no evidence. The trial court after hearing this testimony could have reasonably concluded that the repair work done was, negligently performed, or that the inspection given to the truck was so inadequate as to cause actionable negligence. We think the state of the evidence was such that the District should have offered some proof to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leiken v. Wilson
...that the defendant did not know — and should not reasonably have been expected to know — about the defect. District of Columbia v. Tilgham, D.C.Mun. App., 157 A.2d 629, 632 (1960); Ravin v. Hanson, D.C.Mun.App., 142 A.2d 830, 832 (1958); cf. Andrews v. Forness, D.C.App., 272 A.2d 672, 673 (......
-
Nash v. Stanley Warner Management Corp.
...light most favorable to them, and to have the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. District of Columbia v. Tilghman, D.C.Mun.App., 157 A.2d 629. We agree; but we think that, viewed in any light, the total showing before the trial court neither required nor jus......
-
Lawrence v. Willoughby
...A.2d 129, 131 (sudden emergency doctrine inapplicable where 'appellant Paterline practically admits his negligence'); District of Columbia v. Tilghman, 157 A.2d 629, 632 (D.C.Mun.App.); Bellere v. Madsen, 114 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla.). The defendant's admission against interest is both weighty ......
-
Chavis v. Commercial Storage, Inc.
...of the vehicle that the brakes were faulty. See, e. g., Currie v. United States, 312 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1963); District of Columbia v. Tilghman, D.C. Mun.App., 157 A.2d 629 (1960). Aside from the difference between a sudden brake failure and a slight pull to the left insofar as establishing t......