Picard v. Smith
Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 4944.,4944. |
Citation | 59 App. DC 291,40 F.2d 803 |
Parties | PICARD et al. v. SMITH. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Morris Simon, Lawrence Koenigsberger, Eugene Young, and Selig Brez, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
S. T. Ansell and E. S. Bailey, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Appeal from a judgment in the Supreme Court of the District for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000 upon the verdict of a jury in an action of tort.
The declaration alleges that it was the duty of the defendants as proprietors of Harvey's Restaurant in the District of Columbia "to serve plaintiff's intestate with wholesome food, fit for human consumption, * * * but in violation thereof, the defendants by their servant, servants, employees, and agents, carelessly, negligently, wrongfully, and unlawfully served to the plaintiff's intestate tainted, corrupt, poisonous and unwholesome oysters, unfit for human consumption, which the defendants, their servant, servants, agents, or employees knew or by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence should have known were tainted, corrupt, poisonous, unwholesome, and unfit for human consumption, and that the plaintiff's intestate ate the said oysters so served to him, * * *" and that his death was caused thereby on the 29th of April, 1926.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict. The motion was overruled. Defendants thereupon introduced evidence.
At the close of all the evidence, defendants again interposed a motion to dismiss, on two grounds: First, "that there was no evidence that the plaintiff's intestate came to his death as the result of eating any oysters furnished by the defendants," and, second, "that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendants were guilty of any negligence." The action of the court in overruling this motion is here assigned as error.
By introducing evidence after the denial, at the close of plaintiff's case, of their motion for a directed verdict, the defendants waived their exception. Washington Utilities Co. v. Wadley, 44 App. D. C. 176; McCabe & Steen Co. v. Wilson, 209 U. S. 275, 28 S. Ct. 558, 52 L. Ed. 788. If, therefore, on all the evidence, the jury was justified in finding that plaintiff's intestate came to his death through defendants' negligence as alleged, the second motion was properly overruled.
It is the duty of the proprietor of a public restaurant to furnish food fit for human consumption, and failure in this respect resulting in injury is foundation for an action for negligence. King v. Davis, 54 App. D. C. 239, 296 F. 986; Horn & Hardart Baking Co. v. Lieber (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) 449; Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co., 231 Mass. 86, 120 N. E. 396, 4 A. L. R. 1556; Bishop v. Webber, 139 Mass. 411, 1 N. E. 154, 52 Am. Rep. 715; Bark v. Dixson, 115 Minn. 172, 131 N. W. 1078, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 775.
Plaintiff's evidence was, in substance, as follows: About 1 o'clock on April 29, 1926, plaintiff's intestate, Kenneth M. Smith, a commissioned officer of the Navy (a chief pharmacist), and five other commissioned officers, all apparently in good health, went to Harvey's Restaurant and ordered oysters. Three of the men had raw oysters on the half shell, and three (Officers Legg, Berkstresser, and Smith) had fried oysters. We will here quote from Officer Berkstresser's testimony: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stewart v. Martin
...1172; Catani v. Swift & Co., 251 Pa. 52, 95 A. 931, L.R.A. 1917B, 1272; Ketterer v. Armour & Co., 247 F. 921, L.R.A. 1918D, 798; Pickard v. Smith, 40 F.2d 803; Upton v. Harrison, 68 F.2d 232, 292 U.S. 633, L.Ed. 1486; F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Wilson, 74 F.2d 439, 98 A.L.R. 681; Fisher v. Washi......
-
Hochberg v. O'Donnell's Restaurant, Inc.
...substance. It is no doubt sound that a person should recover if he suffered injury from unwholesome (tainted) oysters, Picard v. Smith, 59 App.D.C. 291, 40 F.2d 803 (1930), or because of a foreign object (a pebble) in a roll. Cushing v. Rodman, supra. But we do not read these cases as holdi......
-
China Doll Restaurant, Inc. v. MacDonald
...Stores, Inc., D.C. Mun.App., 149 A.2d 420; Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works v. Kelly, D.C. Mun.App. 40 A.2d 85. 2. Picard v. Smith, 59 App.D.C. 291, 40 F.2d 803; Lohse v. Coffey, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A.2d 258; Goodwin v. Misticos, 20T Miss. 361, 42 So.2d 3. Chevy Chase Dairy v. Mullineaux, 6......
-
Lohse v. Coffey.
...be affirmed. Affirmed. 1 Described as two layers of sponge cake with a layer of a sort of cream custard in between. 2 Picard v. Smith, 59 App.D.C. 291, 40 F.2d 803. A number of cases to the same effect are set out in an annotation in 130 A.L.R. 616. 3 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Hug......