District of Columbia v. Stone
| Decision Date | 14 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 1603.,1603. |
| Citation | 112 A.2d 497 |
| Parties | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Venstone STONE, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Andrew G. Conlyn, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Harry L. Walker, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant, the District of Columbia, appeals from an adverse verdict and judgment for damages for personal injuries sustained by appellee Stone. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case on the ground that the notice given by appellee was not legally sufficient to meet the requirements of the District statute which provides:
"No action shall be maintained against the District of Columbia for unliquidated damages to person or property unless the claimant within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, he, his agent, or attorney gave notice in writing to the commissioners of the District of Columbia of the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of such injury or damage: Provided, however, That a report in writing by the Metropolitan police department, in regular course of duty, shall be regarded as a sufficient notice under the above provision.1
The complaint alleged that the accident occurred "near the corner of 6th and L Streets, Southeast." The evidence at trial disclosed the following facts: Appellee, while on his way to work on the morning of April 15, 1953, stepped on the edge of a manhole cover located at the northeast corner of 6th and L Streets, S. E. The manhole cover, projecting above ground level, caused the appellee to fall injuring himself. On April 30, 1953, appellee's attorney sent a letter to the corporation counsel giving notice of the injury and stating that the accident occurred on the northwest corner of 6th and L Streets, S. E.
It must be conceded that this notice was fatally defective inasmuch as the statute is clear and unambiguous in its mandate that the giving of notice must be "in writing to the commissioners of the District of Columbia.2
In this case, however, evidence was introduced to the effect that appellee made a verbal report of the accident to the Metropolitan police department, which in turn submitted a written report of the accident in the regular course of duty. Counsel for appellee admits that his client informed the police officer that he fell on the southeast corner of the intersection, whereas, in fact, the evidence disclosed that the accident occurred on the northeast corner.
The intersection of 6th and L Streets, S. E., is not a typical four-corner intersection. Rather, it is different in that 6th Street, which runs north and south, upon meeting L Street, which runs east and west, does not continue directly north. In order to continue north on 6th Street it is necessary to proceed in an easterly direction on L Street approximately 200 feet. Thus the northeast and northwest corners of 6th and L Streets, S. E., are approximately 200 feet east of the southeast and southwest corners.
It appears from the record that there is more than one manhole cover at this intersection and that an agent of the District Government, in conducting his investigation, inspected a manhole cover other than the one on the northeast corner. Therefore, the question before ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. District of Columbia
...motion for summary judgment, and, after a jury trial, appellant won a judgment. The Municipal Court of Appeals reversed. 1955, 112 A.2d 497, 499. It did so on the strength of McDonald v. District of Columbia, 1955, 95 U.S.App. D.C. 305, 221 F.2d 860, where this court held that inaccuracies ......